Mark Steyn has 0 credibility with no credentials in science, you don't go to your garbage man for medical advice. The only defensive argument that he has against the defamation he's accused of is "freedom of speech."
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Change Deniers Hilariously Misrepresent Data
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
What a load of garbled nonsense that was spewed out of Steyn's mouth with no facts. All he was stating was how nice the Climate change deniers are and how bad the climatologists are. He even cited a Nobel prize winner for Physics, is getting his facts right about climate change. We all know that this particular Nobel prize winner later admitted that he was no climate expert.
He's just a right wing bully
The only defensive argument that he has against the defamation he's accused of is "freedom of speech."
Bullfeathers.
It's a matter of public record that more than 100 climate researchers -- including Mann's closest allies and friends -- have questioned Mann's credibility and his research.
Indeed, even Malcolm Hughes and Raymond Bradley -- Mann's collaborators on the hockey stick graph -- say Mann is full of crap. That would meet every rational person's definition of "evidence."
Bullfeathers.
It's a matter of public record that more than 100 climate researchers -- including Mann's closest allies and friends -- have questioned Mann's credibility and his research.
Indeed, even Malcolm Hughes and Raymond Bradley -- Mann's collaborators on the hockey stick graph -- say Mann is full of crap. That would meet every rational person's definition of "evidence."
Its time for you to read the real story.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
You lost the climate change bet and need to buy, read and review that book on this board.
As a favour to you, I'm also telling you to buy this one.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
Get them now while boxing day sales are on.
Loser.
Bullfeathers.
It's a matter of public record that more than 100 climate researchers -- including Mann's closest allies and friends -- have questioned Mann's credibility and his research.
Indeed, even Malcolm Hughes and Raymond Bradley -- Mann's collaborators on the hockey stick graph -- say Mann is full of crap. That would meet every rational person's definition of "evidence."
Evidence?
Evidence?
Yes, the challenges to Mann's work constitute evidence.
The fact that numerous climate researchers -- skeptics and believers (including Mann's closest buddies and colleagues) -- have disputed Mann's findings is evidence that Steyn's opinion is legitimately held.
A courtroom isn't a laboratory. The court won't -- and shouldn't -- seek to determine what the Earth's temperature was hundreds of years ago. Serious adults don't look to resolve scientific differences in a court of law.
What the court needs to see is that there is evidence that Steyn's opinions have merit. And there is plenty of that.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop
By the way -- I suspect you've never done primary research in this field. Does that mean you have "no evidence" to support your opinions? :thumb:
Last edited:
Its time for you to read the real story.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
You lost the climate change bet and need to buy, read and review that book on this board.
As a favour to you, I'm also telling you to buy this one.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
Get them now while boxing day sales are on.
Loser.
You are the sore loser.. Everyone on terb know that you lost the bet to Movie-fan2 ! LOSER!!!
Yes, the challenges to Mann's work constitute evidence.
Mann's work has been investigated and confirmed as well as his research verified by other researchers.
Its just more of your lying.
By the way, I'm going to keep pestering you until you honour the terms of the bet you lost and buy these books and review them here:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
You bet that the global anomaly for 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC by NASA's numbers and picked NASA in full knowledge that NASA continually updates their processes for their work.
You lost the bet, man up.
Loser.
You are the sore loser.. Everyone on terb know that you lost the bet to Movie-fan2 ! LOSER!!!
How could I have lost the bet?
Moviefan bet that NASA's reading for the global anomaly for 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, and its now 0.84ºC?
How is that losing the bet?
Idiot.
You are the sore loser.. Everyone on terb know that you lost the bet to Movie-fan2 ! LOSER!!!
Problem is,...footer doesn't even understand why he lost the bet, so how the hell could he understand any of the data the NASA was using.
Lost cause.
FAST
Problem is,...footer doesn't even understand why he lost the bet, so how the hell could he understand any of the data the NASA was using.
Lost cause.
FAST
Moviefan picked NASA, if he didn't know how NASA works when he made the bet then he's a bigger idiot then even you.
NASA's numbers show that moviefan lost the bet, but like a typical denier, can never admit he's wrong.
Just like moviefan lies and tries to claim that NASA changed the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.htmlQ. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.
The new religion is 'climate change'. Anyone who disputes that is a heretic. Heretics used to be burned at the stake. Now they are being sued, and otherwise being denied jobs and tenureships for daring to raise doubt against the orthodoxy.
Proponents of climate change claim that man is the only cause of climate change. However, the variations of solar activity/warming is a major source of climate change. Those defending the notion that man made factors are the main causes of global warning are unable to state what proportion is due to man and what proportion is due to natural phenomena. It seems that natural phenomena were never part of the climate change equation.
Proponents of climate change claim that man is the only cause of climate change. However, the variations of solar activity/warming is a major source of climate change. Those defending the notion that man made factors are the main causes of global warning are unable to state what proportion is due to man and what proportion is due to natural phenomena. It seems that natural phenomena were never part of the climate change equation.
Problem is,...footer doesn't even understand why he lost the bet, so how the hell could he understand any of the data the NASA was using.
He can't even keep track of his own bullshit.
Just like moviefan lies and tries to claim that NASA changed the data.
They updated and revised old data on the same data set.
Its the same data, all they did was weight some stations or ocean measurements differently to better represent the whole picture.
And while he trips all over his contradictions about the changes to the data, let's not forget that a mere month ago, the so-called expert on the changes to the sea surface data claimed that NASA's global temperatures don't include sea surface temperatures.
The Hadcrut numbers are lower then NOAA and NASA in general, since they include sea surface temperature while the others do air temperatures.
He can't even keep track of his own bullshit.
And while he trips all over his contradictions about the changes to the data, let's not forget that a mere month ago, the so-called expert on the changes to the sea surface data claimed that NASA's global temperatures don't include sea surface temperatures.
Hey, I make the occasional mistake and then correct them, that's much different then what you do, which is out and out lie and cheat on bets, acting like a total weasel.
You lied about these two studies, claiming they didn't prove the consensus, when the studies found the total opposite.
That's out and out lying.
The evidence you provided found:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
and
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warmingThe results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
You lied about both of those studies.
Just like you are lying by claiming that NASA changed the data just so you can lie and claim you didn't lose the bet.
Just like you keep lying by claiming there is a 'pause' in climate change and keep lying that the IPCC is wrong when the bet shows that they are spectacularly correct.
You lie.
You lost the bet.
As loser you must buy these two books, read them and review them here:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
This was the bet:
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
And what do those numbers now read?
0.84ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop whining.
Hey, I make the occasional mistake and then correct them....
"Occasional"?
Let's keep going. Not only did you not know that the sea surface temperatures are part of the data, but you don't have the slightest clue about the changes that were made.
According to you, the adjustments to the sea surface data were just some routine tweaks that are part of the "normal processes" -- "minor differences" with nothing unusual or newsworthy about them.
Its the same data, all they did was weight some stations or ocean measurements differently to better represent the whole picture.
Here, take a look at moviefan's favourite comparison chart.
There are minor differences, but those differences are minor.
Part of the normal processes that NASA goes through continually.
Really?
If that's the case, why did the changes attract international attention?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/s...evidence-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...bout-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-thing-as-the-global-warming-pause-now-what/
Clearly, the changes were a much bigger deal than you've been stating.
The reality is this: The data were adjusted. Your numbers (the calculation of the original bet vs. the observed data) come from two different data sets.
You refuse to make the adjustments to the raw numbers that are essential to any comparison because you know you lost the bet.
And, more importantly, you have lost the argument. The IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong. Even in this super El Nino year, the predictions are still running hotter than the actual data.
"Occasional"?
Really?
If that's the case, why did the changes attract international attention?
Here are the changes in methodology that you seem to think are dishonest and for some reason think that this negates the bet we made, from your NYT article:
For many decades, into the mid-20th century, the main measurements came from sailors hauling up buckets of seawater and plopping thermometers into them.
The buckets varied, the thermometers varied, and some of the sailors were more diligent than others about following instructions. On average, scientists believe, the water tended to cool off a bit before the temperature was recorded.
NOAA had long believed the data glitches from the buckets had largely disappeared after World War II, but new information suggests that bucket measurements continued on some commercial vessels long after the war. The new NOAA data set attempts to correct for this and other problems in the ocean records.
So you think that correcting sea temperature measurements made with buckets is enough to make our bet invalid?
And you think studies and changes like this are dishonest?
What a total idiot you are.
Just man up and admit that you lost the bet.
Loser.
Here are the changes in methodology that you seem to think are dishonest and for some reason think that this negates the bet we made, from your NYT article:
So you think that correcting sea temperature measurements made with buckets is enough to make our bet invalid?
And you think studies and changes like this are dishonest?
Talk about dancing. Among your many evasions, I noticed that you ignored the point that the changes were far more newsworthy than the "normal processes" that you were talking about.
In any event, I'm not calling for the bet to be invalidated. Quite the contrary -- what I and others have been saying is that I clearly won the bet.
What you don't understand is that you can't take raw numbers from two different data sets and just pair them up, side by side, to produce fairy-tale conclusions. If you want to compare the numbers, you have to make the essential adjustments to the raw data so that the numbers are comparable.
It's easy. The new NASA graph bumped the anomalies for recent years by at least 0.05ºC.
So, to get comparable data, subtract at least 0.05ºC from 0.845ºC and see if you get a number that is at least equal to 0.83ºC.
If 0.845ºC minus 0.05ºC gives you a number that is sufficiently less than 0.83ºC, then you can conclude that I won the bet.
Talk about dancing. Among your many evasions, I noticed that you ignored the point that the changes were far more newsworthy than the "normal processes" that you were talking about.
And you are an idiot if you think that different weighting of measurements in the sea based on bucket use makes the bet invalid.
In any event, I'm not calling for the bet to be invalidated. Quite the contrary -- what I and others have been saying is that I clearly won the bet.
What you don't understand is that you can't take raw numbers from two different data sets and just pair them up, side by side, to produce fairy-tale conclusions. If you want to compare the numbers, you have to make the essential adjustments to the raw data so that the numbers are comparable.
Stop lying.
Its the same data, different weighting for bucket use, that's the only difference.
Same raw numbers.
You are lying.
It's easy. The new NASA graph bumped the anomalies for recent years by at least 0.05ºC.
Luck of the draw, loser.
They adjusted the numbers and they went up a bit, but so what, they could have gone down.
You lost a bit there, but you were losing already, its not a big deal.
So, to get comparable data, subtract at least 0.05ºC from 0.845ºC and see if you get a number that is at least equal to 0.83ºC.
If 0.845ºC minus 0.05ºC gives you a number that is sufficiently less than 0.83ºC, then you can conclude that I won the bet.
No, that's to get different data.
The NASA data says the year is 0.84ºC.
You lost the bet.
Don't you remember what the bet was?
This was the bet:
The bet wasn't 'NASA mumbers minus whatever it takes to make me win'.If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Loser.
And you know what, even with your tampering with the numbers to try to win, you are still very likely to lose a second time.
If December's anomaly is as high as November's then you'd lose again even with your weasel numbers.
We are presently 0.045ºC off of nailing the 20 year projection of 0.2ºC/decade, even with the revised numbers, so its more then likely that the IPCC projections totally nailed it and you are about to lose the bet a second time.
You lost.
Deal with it and buy the books, loser.
Frank stop doing this, stop hijacking threads because you want to throw a temper tantrum, accept a loss like a man and stop behaving like a 10 year old.
I have totally stopped posting in any Israel/Palestine threads because of you. We generally share the same views on the conflict, but you are such an assclown that I do not want to appear to be on the same side as you for fear that people might think I am as childish and retarded as you are.
You are the worst enemy of causes you support, no doubt many here who support AGW either no longer post or reduce their # of posts because they do not want to be associated with you, just like I stopped posting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I have totally stopped posting in any Israel/Palestine threads because of you. We generally share the same views on the conflict, but you are such an assclown that I do not want to appear to be on the same side as you for fear that people might think I am as childish and retarded as you are.
You are the worst enemy of causes you support, no doubt many here who support AGW either no longer post or reduce their # of posts because they do not want to be associated with you, just like I stopped posting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Frank stop doing this, stop hijacking threads because you want to throw a temper tantrum, accept a loss like a man and stop behaving like a 10 year old.
Look, if you make a bet on a hockey game, you don't weasel out because one player gets hurt.
And moviefan can't weasel out of a bet because NASA updated their numbers in my favour instead of his.
We bet on NASA's numbers and until he admits I won, this continues.
There is no other way to interpret a bet on temps hitting 0.83 that has now hit 0.84.
This thread is really just a continuation of moviefan's lying, and I've had enough of that.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 638
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 207
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 174
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 223
