Provide us with specific links that show where NASA, the NOAA and the AAAS have denounced Michael Mann's junk research.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
You still haven't answered the question.
Let's try again.
Does the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change":
1) Only include scientists who believe that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?
Or
2) Include scientists who believe that natural factors have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?
Why would they, Mann's research has been confirmed as legit.
Why don't you do a little Watts research.
http://wottsupwiththat.com/
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/more-perversity-from-anthony-watts.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...he-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
Start there and tell me how Watt is just as glorious as Rob Ford...
I answered the question.
Now time for you to answer this question:
Yes or no: Did the authors of both studies you sited confirm the consensus in their findings?
Bull. If you're going to accuse people of lying, you better be prepared to back it up.
Let's try again.
Does the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change":
1) Only include scientists who believe that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?
Or
2) Include scientists who believe that natural factors have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?
It's a straightforward question. I don't know why you keep evading it.
In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.
But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.
-------------------------------------- Here the link to Wegman Report -" (Wegman Report) " http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Unscientific hockey sticks and hidden data
These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazenly unscientific the Hockey Stick is. (“fraud” was replaced with “unscientific”) see footnote below article
here the link to report
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
THIS BLOG HAVE LINKS TO LOTS OF PEER REVIEW JOURNAL ON THE GRAPHS
—————————–
The bottom line is that there are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global. Yet there is a disinformation campaign out there by the IPCC and others to promote the idea that it was a local phenomenon and that the Hockey Stick Graph has not been resoundingly, completely shown to be scientifically baseless.
UPDATED: The line “the world was warmer than 800 years ago” was changed to “the world was as warm years ago” to reflect updated results from boreholes that I was unaware of when this was posted. It makes little material difference to the arguments for or against CO2 whether the world was warmer or as warm 800 years ago, or 1000 years ago. We know it was warmer 5000 years ago in the holocene.
UPDATED: In light of current court cases the word “fraud” was replaced with “unscientific” pending the outcome of their decisions.
Last edited:
http://s6.postimg.org/enk3sxddd/time_pic_good.png
It's an old story. It wasn't that long ago that the same sort of people who currently tell us that we are on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-warming", were proclaiming that we were on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-cooling" and over-population. If you are old enough, you might remember some of these memorable quotes:
"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder."
[New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961] ".. civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind"
[George Wald, Biologist, Harvard University, April 10, 1970] Due to increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor: "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born"
[Newsweek Magazine, January 26, 1970] By 1995: "..somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
[Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look Magazine, April, 1970] The world will be: "11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age)"
[Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970] "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation"
[Barry Commoner, Biologist at University of Washington, The journal Environment, January, 1970]"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make"
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"air pollution ... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone"
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half ..."
[Life magazine, January, 1970]"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation"
[Denis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 ... the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine"
[Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people..." "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
[Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September, 1971] "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."
[Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972] "An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere."
[New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978] "The Cooling World: There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it... Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states. ... The central fact is that ... the earth's climate seems to be cooling down." [emphasis added]
[Newsweek, April 28, 1985] "New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now." [i.e., by 2004]
[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989] "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."
[Michael Oppenheimer, from his book "Dead Heat," 1990]
Whoops again! With over forty years to see these predictions realized, there was no worldwide famine. No end to civilization. No ice age. No mass species extinction. No American dust bowl. Britain is still intact. The North Pole still has a 3.82 million square mile ice mass. If New York sucks, its not due to its mimicing Florida. And there is still enough sunlight to require SPF 45. Yet, I don't remember getting an apology from any of these people, their sponsoring universities, or a retraction published in any of the major magazines.
And despite their utter failure at accurate predictions, every one of these purveyors of doom was being funded from the same government trough, and consequently, demanding exactly the same "solution" as is being proposed today: complete regulation over the behavior of every individual and businesses by government overseerers. If the true goal of these policies was human salvation, then the lessons of history and the Climategate facts should give one pause. But if the actual goal is gaining control as a means to increased power, then ignoring all these bothersome facts, as is being done, begins to make a perverted sort of sense.
Last edited:
Answered in post #658.
Why won't you answer this question?
Yes or no: Did the authors of both studies you cited confirm the consensus in their findings?
McIntrye?
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1014/20130517 Decision EA20120156.pdf
His claims were tested and found wanting.
Once again you show your conspiracy theorist tendencies. Do you really believe the hundreds and hundreds of of scientists working for NASA, NOAA, and AAAS are lying about their results?
(also funny because several pages ago you claimed that they all backed you view:crazy:
Achtung! Germans Giving Up on Global Warming
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...giving-global-warming/?test=latestnewsGermans
citizens are rapidly losing faith in global warming following the Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down substantially from the 62 percent that expressed concern with the state of the environment in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll, conducted by polling company Infratest for the German newsmagazine. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is thought to be largely due to mistakes and exaggerations recently discovered in a report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the site.
Following the leak of numerous e-mails from a top climate-science facility, a seemingly endless catalog of mistakes, misstatements, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the Climate-gate umbrella.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Climate research has been put, “in a difficult situation,” said Ernst Rietschel president of the Leibniz Community. He said sceptics have been given an easy target by the IPCC and said Pachauri should take on the responsibility and resign
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...giving-global-warming/?test=latestnewsGermans
citizens are rapidly losing faith in global warming following the Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down substantially from the 62 percent that expressed concern with the state of the environment in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll, conducted by polling company Infratest for the German newsmagazine. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is thought to be largely due to mistakes and exaggerations recently discovered in a report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the site.
Following the leak of numerous e-mails from a top climate-science facility, a seemingly endless catalog of mistakes, misstatements, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the Climate-gate umbrella.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Climate research has been put, “in a difficult situation,” said Ernst Rietschel president of the Leibniz Community. He said sceptics have been given an easy target by the IPCC and said Pachauri should take on the responsibility and resign
The abstract:
"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future."
Immediately you start to get a feeling that Trenberth's quote has been taken out of context somewhat. But wait until you see the part immediately following the quotemined phrase:
"The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate."
The context is now clear. Trenberth is talking about the travesty of the observation system and our inability to see where the heat is going from year to year. It is well known and public that there are problems in recent years with the global climate observation system (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.php). Problems are more of a rule in any complex field of science rather than an exception.
The accusers cherrypicked a phrase from Trenberth's email thinking they had found some hidden truth, when in fact Trenberth had already published about this. These kind of accusers will analyze only until they get an argument they want. The quotemine above provided them with the argument so they looked no further.
The accusers exploit the private nature of these emails to claim these emails represent the uncovered real thoughts of the scientists. This cuts both ways, if you are going to exploit the privacy of the emails to claim "this is what the scientists really think!" then you are forced to accept the emails contain what the scientists really think.
So what do accusers make of the bulk of the email material which runs counter to their views? In the Trenberth exchange for example, what do accusers make of the fact that even behind closed doors the scientists are saying long term warming signal exists and short term cooling is noise? I would have thought the accusers would have been quite interested in learning this as it contradicts their beliefs that this was just some excuse that scientists couldn't possibly believe. But no they aren't interested in that kind of "what scientists really think".
Overall I think the emails are inconvenient revelations for the accusers, although unfortunately quote-mining is a particularly effective method of propaganda and no easy counter exists.
more links:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/climate-science-explained-in-one-simple-graph/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/more-on-the-noaa-july-fraud/
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1465
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
http://allegationaudit.blogspot.ca/2009/11/trenberth-on-travesty.html
Sigh.
More of the same nonsense, most of it articulately answered here:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/global-warming/
Back to the chart that only idiots deny.
Only an idiot looks at this chart and sees a straight line.
More of the same nonsense, most of it articulately answered here:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/global-warming/
Back to the chart that only idiots deny.
Only an idiot looks at this chart and sees a straight line.
So frank,...still haven't been able to reproduce the following result from you UNEMPLOYABLES site,...NOAA
NOAA graphs produced the results,... that from 2000 thru 2015, there was +0.12C/decade warming
Or are you going to claim that is "cherry picking",...as a way to avoid. ???
FAST
NOAA graphs produced the results,... that from 2000 thru 2015, there was +0.12C/decade warming
Or are you going to claim that is "cherry picking",...as a way to avoid. ???
FAST
This is from a peer review journal and the researcher not oil funded.
Here’s the survey as it appeared in EOS:
--------> EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002 <----- PEER REVIEW JOURNAL
Very poor sampling method, very poor question construction, cannot evaluate administration of the survey based upon this info but overall a very poor study to be sure. High probability of sample bias and questions structured to obtain a directed response. My opinion is based upon designing and managing survey research for over 20 years either directly or as a function of departments I managed. Quoting this study is, indeed, meaningless.
THE GRAPH AT LISTED IN THE PEER REVIEW JOURNAL SHOWING HOW FLAW THE SURVEY IS!!!
That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. -----> SEE PEER REVIEW GRAPH OF SURVEY BELOW.
Plus a large number of 7111 Climate scientists did not even bother answering the survey because they did not even believe in the AGW .
http://s6.postimg.org/63daf3569/better_graph_98_consensus_false.png
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Last edited:
Its just wrong.
NOAA lists 2000 as a 0.40ºC anomaly and lists 2015 as 0.85ºC (year to date).
Thats a difference of 0.45ºC over a decade and a half, 0.30ºC per decade.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Is it hard being wrong all the time?
From a study that supported the consensus claim.
A study published and supported by peer review and now linked to on the NASA and AAAS site.
As noted here, its just one of a few studies that all came to the same view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
Meanwhile, 2015 is still going to be a record warm year and 14 of the 15 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
The evidence is overwhelming.
