Yes, 97%

[SSDD]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

Did you read about his (mann's) hockey stick filter being duplicated? An exact match to his hockey stick has finally been produced....it took some seriously strange, and truly unprecedented programming tricks to make it happen....no wonder he wants to keep his methodology out of the public eye.

 

[SSDD]

Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick. He's a natural born liar of the highest order

because he can post a lot studies that can be rebutted with another one (of course he ignores those) we are suppose to believe he is an expert
all I see him as is being brainwashed and rude on top of that or he must be making money off the scam.

LOL. No, Crick is overly polite, considering the replys he gets. I am not. I am quite willing to call braindead ignoramouses like you for what they are.

You have been given repeatedly what the scientists are finding, and all you do is repeat nonsense from an obese junkie, a fake english lord, and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.

Sorry rocks...but you are as big a wacko as crick....you, like him are a poser pretending some scientific expertise and rely on insult, misdirection, and fabrication to support your position.

 

[SSDD]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

And what is each of those peoples standing within the scientific community? And how do you think that Hansen stacks up against McIntyre?

Hansen's long history of hysterics, alarmism, and failed predictions put him in bad stead against everyone...he is a political hack who will say anything for money.

“Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier,(Milwaukee) June 11, 1986
source

[quote“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier (Milwaukee), June 11, 1986
source[/quote]

[quote"The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years." J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346[/quote]

[quote"The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis, 1988]” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357[/quote]

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” -- The News and Courier, June 17th 1986“

“The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” --Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, 17th February, 2006 source

"How long have we got? We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, Friday, Feb 17, 2006 source

I could go on but is it really necessary....the fact that you guys continue to support and defend him and attempt to compare him to any actual scientist speaks volumes to the state of the alarmist camp.

 

[SSDD]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

How about a comparison between the number of papers these two fellows have gotten published in peer reviewed journals and the number of citations made from them? How about a comparison between how much paid research each has done? How about a comparison between how each has advanced and succeeded in their chosen careers?

It is true that hansen has had more spectacularly failed papers published....and had more citations to his spectacularly failed paper than Mcintyre....are you saying that is a good thing?....that sort of thing is the basis for the error cascade that climate science is the unfortunate victim of.

 

[SSDD]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

And mann is hiding his fraud with all his might.

 

[Crick]

That must be why he took Steyn and the Review to court. Gosh, no better place to go if you want to keep secrets...

 

[skookerasbil]

Again.....the 97% is a fabricated and rigged #......only the hopelessly duped who dont pay attention to anything buy the 97% thing in 2014.

Oh......and who cares really......no warming has been happening for 19 years now!!! Another completed study confirms it........except to the religious k00ks.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years

 

[Crick]

Again.....the 97% is a fabricated and rigged #......only the hopelessly duped who dont pay attention to anything buy the 97% thing in 2014.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years

You have repeatedly been shown more than sufficient justification for claiming 97% concurrence with the IPCC among active climate scientists. The claim that is false or is not supported by the evidence would be what one would hear from the duped.

And, speaking of duped, quoting Andrew Bolt in an argument on a science topic is fully akin to simply issuing your unconditional surrender.

Despite that, no one is denying that surface warming has slowed since the turn of the century. Unfortunately for you, though, the bathymetric data as well as the radiative balance at the ToA shows quite clearly that the Earth IS still getting accumulating heat and getting warmer. The denier refrain we've been listening to for the last several years, that the last 150 years mean nothing in the face of the last decade is the absolute epitome of cherry picking and completely ignores the range of internal variability clearly demonstrated by the longer temperature record (eg, 1941-1979).

 

[IanC]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

And what is each of those peoples standing within the scientific community? And how do you think that Hansen stacks up against McIntyre?

My comparison was against Mann. I don't like to slag Hansen because he was an excellent scientist before he dropped science for advocacy. He turned out to be wrong but he was honest.

Mann, on the other hand, has been spectacularly dishonest from the beginning. His lies, misdirections and furtiveness have always been there. When you add in his character traits pomposity, pettiness and refusal to acknowledge his many glaring errors, you are left with an odious troll of a man that has almost single-handedly tarnished the reputation of climate science.

 

[IanC]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

 

[SSDD]

That must be why he took Steyn and the Review to court. Gosh, no better place to go if you want to keep secrets...

And then immediately started the delay tactics when the discovery phase started....face it, he is a fraud and the reason he is hiding his methodology is that climate science itself will have no alternative but to throw him under the bus if his wacko methods ever get public scrutiny....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
2) Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid? They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers, which was the IDEA from the get go.

I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.

You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?

Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid?

It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them.

They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers,

They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent.
Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!

You really have to narrow the parameters to get the imaginary 97% number.

You have to understand, what they're actually saying is that 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

 

[Crick]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons. But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.


This does not change the FACT that McIntyre is virtually unpublished in statistics (his field of expertise). He has nothing but OJT in mining and since that has no relation whatsoever to climate science I don't care what he may or may not have published there. Mann is a professionally and academically successful scientist who is both heavily published and widely cited. McIntyre is an almost unpublished statistician who spent his professional career working outside of his field.

 

[jc456]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons. But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.

still nothing, you still have nothing to prove your dribble. mumbo jumbo continues. Dude you need a job.

 

[Crick]

I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.

You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?

What the **** is wrong with you? I've REPEATEDLY posted numerous studies showing results in the high 90s. Can you not READ?

It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them.

It's obvious that you can NOT read because the pollsters DID include them. Results from ALL scientists show concurrence in the high 80s.

They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent. Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!

The only thing that came out of the bag with CRU's stolen emails is that you people are ignorant and abysmally lacking in morals. If you want to claim suppression by the journals, you're right back with your mass conspiracy theory. Pick up your tin foil hat and join the other conspiracy whackos in the big room down the hall.

You really have to narrow the parameters to get the imaginary 97% number.
You have to understand, what they're actually saying is that 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

I don't have to narrow them at all. From the very beginning the crucial result has been support for the IPCC contention among active climate scientists. That you think they should be polling every sheep herder and carwash attendant just shows you TRULY DO NOT HAVE A ******* CLUE.

 

[Crick]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons. But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.

still nothing, you still have nothing to prove your dribble. mumbo jumbo continues. Dude you need a job.

What do you think I need to counter you? So far it has required nothing more than a disappointed shake of my head.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.

You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?

What the **** is wrong with you? I've REPEATEDLY posted numerous studies showing results in the high 90s. Can you not READ?

It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them.

It's obvious that you can NOT read because the pollsters DID include them. Results from ALL scientists show concurrence in the high 80s.

They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent. Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!

The only thing that came out of the bag with CRU's stolen emails is that you people are ignorant and abysmally lacking in morals. If you want to claim suppression by the journals, you're right back with your mass conspiracy theory. Pick up your tin foil hat and join the other conspiracy whackos in the big room down the hall.

You really have to narrow the parameters to get the imaginary 97% number.
You have to understand, what they're actually saying is that 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

I don't have to narrow them at all. From the very beginning the crucial result has been support for the IPCC contention among active climate scientists. That you think they should be polling every sheep herder and carwash attendant just shows you TRULY DO NOT HAVE A ******* CLUE.

97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

Yes, that's how fucked up you are

And you STILL haven't posted a single experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

The difference between the AGWCult and an Islamist Jihadist is that the Jihadist will only blow up himself and a few innocent bystanders. You AGW AKBAR!!! Fanatics want to take down all of western civilization with your fake science

 

[jc456]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails.

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.

It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons. But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.

still nothing, you still have nothing to prove your dribble. mumbo jumbo continues. Dude you need a job.

What do you think I need to counter you? So far it has required nothing more than a disappointed shake of my head.

I don't think you need to counter me at all. You can just shut up and go away and I'm a happy camper. See your posts are juvenile and pointless. They prove nothing. And proof of nothing is just that nothing. So you offer nothing to the discussion. You act all high and mighty and have absolutely nothing. It's hilarious. You don't even know what 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere will do to weather or climate or temperature or storms or anything. You don't have any proof, nadda, zero, You're a waste on the board.

Oh BTW, you shouldn't be sharing your sexual habits on a message board.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is amazing that these climate crusaders have been relying on the same old crap for almost two decades and have been spinning the wheels for two decades = science having zero impact on energy policy.

This whole 97% crap has been going on forever......a total ruse......complete intellectual dishonesty. You'd think these meatheads would look to go with Plan B.

 

[PredFan]

Meh, scientists are for sale. Have been for decades.