Clever bloke says global warming is a sack of arse
Discussion
Frankeh said:
TuxRacer said:
Frankeh said:
Humanity does its best work when it's on the brink of destruction, or rather when it thinks it is.
Is it just me or do we get more than our fair share of religious nuts on here?I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate.
chris watton said:
Frankeh said:
TuxRacer said:
Frankeh said:
Humanity does its best work when it's on the brink of destruction, or rather when it thinks it is.
Is it just me or do we get more than our fair share of religious nuts on here?I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate.
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
Frankeh said:
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
Frankeh said:
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
MilnerR said:
el stovey said:
jbi said:
el stovey said:
He must be right and all the other many of thousands of scientists are wrong.
The community is largely divided on the issue, It's a gravy train IMO
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 12th October 15:48
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
Frankeh said:
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Blue Meanie said:
Frankeh said:
Hedders said:
Frankeh said:
Ad hominem arguments are also a favourite of conspiracy theorists so I suggest you don't participate if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right!Go and have a look again at some 'conspiracy' threads and tell us which group is using personal attacks. You are one of the worst 'name callers' out there!
sidicks said:
el stovey said:
Have you read a peer reviewed paper or scientific journal of any kind that suggests MMGW doesn't exist recently?
Have you read about the abuse of the 'peer view' process recently???The hockey stick graph was peer reviewed IIRC, despite being total fiction.
Globulator said:
sidicks said:
el stovey said:
Have you read a peer reviewed paper or scientific journal of any kind that suggests MMGW doesn't exist recently?
Have you read about the abuse of the 'peer view' process recently???The hockey stick graph was peer reviewed IIRC, despite being total fiction.
Blue Meanie said:
It was the peer review side of it that revealed it was erroneous... Therefore the peer review process works.
Was it? I didn't think any of Steve McIntyre's work (around the hockey stick) was peer reviewed, although I don't know about the subsequent reviews admittedly, but I do find it surprising.Blue Meanie said:
Globulator said:
sidicks said:
el stovey said:
Have you read a peer reviewed paper or scientific journal of any kind that suggests MMGW doesn't exist recently?
Have you read about the abuse of the 'peer view' process recently???The hockey stick graph was peer reviewed IIRC, despite being total fiction.
It was widely published until one man, Stephen McIntyre, debunked it comprehensively sometime later.
Globulator said:
Blue Meanie said:
Globulator said:
sidicks said:
el stovey said:
Have you read a peer reviewed paper or scientific journal of any kind that suggests MMGW doesn't exist recently?
Have you read about the abuse of the 'peer view' process recently???The hockey stick graph was peer reviewed IIRC, despite being total fiction.
It was widely published until one man, Stephen McIntyre, debunked it comprehensively sometime later.
Steyn article said:
1) The Settled Scientists have wholly corrupted the process of “peer review.” Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply: “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” And you’ll be glad to hear they did!
2) The Settled Scientists have refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests by (illegally) deleting relevant documents. Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005: “The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” the requested data.
3) The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) “hide the decline” - that’s to say, obscure the awkward fact that “global warming” stopped over a decade ago. Phil Jones, July 5, 2005: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
4) The Settled Scientists have tortured the data into compliance with political requirements. From the computer code for one of the “Mann” models:
“Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
(How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel)
“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?
“OH F-K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F-K THIS.”
Yep, F-K that for a pile of excrement. It would be marginally less offensive if the rest of us weren't paying for intellectualised faeces via taxation, higher energy bills and the feeling engendered by listening to either millionaire or great unwashed environ mentalists whining about cow farts.“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply: “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” And you’ll be glad to hear they did!
2) The Settled Scientists have refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests by (illegally) deleting relevant documents. Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005: “The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” the requested data.
3) The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) “hide the decline” - that’s to say, obscure the awkward fact that “global warming” stopped over a decade ago. Phil Jones, July 5, 2005: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
4) The Settled Scientists have tortured the data into compliance with political requirements. From the computer code for one of the “Mann” models:
“Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
(How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel)
“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?
“OH F-K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F-K THIS.”
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff