I see your lighting straw men on fire again. Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon recap:
".. there are several warning flags raised by this study. First, station siting is indeed important for the maximum and minimum temperature measurements. Second, the adjustments are only partly correcting the temperature record. Third, since the adjustments use data from all surrounding stations, there’s the danger that the mean trends are dominated by data from the poorer stations. (Less than ten percent of the USHCN stations are sited well enough to be considered appropriate for climate trend measurements.)"
and your published research is where again? Please enlighten us with your masterful "scientific insight and mathematical knowledge" that allows you to so harshly judge Watts et al without having read their work.
Ha. cult boy - echo of lies. Lay off the crack pipe!
Its so evident your claim of being a former "skeptic" is such bullshit. If you were, you would understand at least something about the science, would never have claimed co2 is detrimental to plant life and you most certainly would not ignore the thousands of dissenting scientists.
Thats right - thousands of scientists call bullshit on the theory. Some were even part of the inner circle.
But you never were a "skeptic". You have always been a fanatic, kool aid drinking, brainwashed cult boy.
All you know is what they want you to know and you are just fine with that. So enjoy your little cult and remember - you will always be a major fail.
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity
(as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself.
skeptic have been saying this all along. Unfortunately, your so called "scientist" can only admit this behind close doors. lmfao.
The fact is we do not know why it has warmed. A sect of Scientists performed some amazing acrobatics with data and developed a theory that co2 is the cause. That is all you have pal and there are many scientists that reject this theory and many offering alternatives.
If you think co2 is detrimental to food production, you are a raging idiot. Even the pot growers know this one and use co2 to its full glory to produce that kind bud you crave. In fact, they use it at concentrations far greater than our current atmospheric readings. CO2 is steroids for plants. They thrive on it!
You are totally brainwashed and its sad really. So committed to something you know shit about and too damn lazy to actually investigate the crap you are being fed.
I think your generation refers to it as being IN the matrix.
Bullshit. The models have not been accurate. The exact opposite is true and its why they turn to rear projections. Smoke and mirrors cult boy.
The only fact is: We have/had warming. Nothing more or less. Why it warmed is all theory and you still cant establish if it is bad or not. Higher co2 results in higher food production- thats plant science 101 and its why greenhouses pump in tons of it every day. Cold is disastrous. Climate has never been stable and always changes. We now are seeing signs of cooling that even the ipcc is starting to recognize. Those are facts cult boy and nowhere in there do we see co2 having anything to do with temp aside from a circular collection of activists/reviewers pushing that theory. There are many other theories but you chose to latch on to a particular one and you don't even know why.
But I know why...your cult boy and you will believe anything they tell you.
Touche! Thinkprogess.com Hard to top a crew that thinks the IPCC is the "Council of Nicaea" producing our articles of faith that shall not be challenged or questioned."
So, what skeptic data have you read that "disagrees with your conclusion"?
perhaps i shouldn't assume your one of those warmist religious freaks.
If you are, the irony of these two agreeing that warming has stopped, you cant conclude shit from the land surface data and the ipcc has problems is priceless. Thanks for pointing that out.
If your not, well. Welcome to the club i guess. Now move along and argue with someone else.
cheerio.
here's the money quote: "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."
lmfao.
"Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous. He thinks there is a pause, that is probably associated with AMO/PDO. So I am ok with this interpretation."
" We also discussed problems with the IPCC, Climategate issues, etc., and we tend to mostly agree on all this. "
Did you even read it or was it too much information for you?
Such a weak strawman. No wonder you had to post as Anonymous Coward...
The real news of this story is that the co author slammed him, accused him of hiding data and put forth more data that shows you are basically full of shit.
Being that you are the arbiter of who qualifies as a scientist, perhaps you would like to share your qualifications to such. Any published peer-reviewed scientific work to back yourself up?
you must be right because you said so.
He is an American meteorologist, AMS holder and conducts scientific analysis of weather stations. What does that blogger know about weather and climate. To be a real climate scientist you must be in bed with WWF, some other offshoot or labeled one by Al Gore. Everyone knows that!
Slashdot Mirror
I see your lighting straw men on fire again. Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon recap:
".. there are several warning flags raised by this study. First, station siting is indeed important for the maximum and minimum temperature measurements. Second, the adjustments are only partly correcting the temperature record. Third, since the adjustments use data from all surrounding stations, there’s the danger that the mean trends are dominated by data from the poorer stations. (Less than ten percent of the USHCN stations are sited well enough to be considered appropriate for climate trend measurements.)"
and your published research is where again? Please enlighten us with your masterful "scientific insight and mathematical knowledge" that allows you to so harshly judge Watts et al without having read their work.
does nothing to deal with the basic claims.
Anyone who reads wuwt knows this is complete bullshit.
Also, He has published. If your so willing pass judgment on another Where the fuck is your published research countering such?
Seems to me your guilty or your own accusation.
Invented my ass. His words: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
As scopes points out:
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving)...
stating that it was invented is a long stretch.
For some reason /. hates Al Gore.
Al Gore is the Dems version of Dear Leader and is full of fail.
One of the most technically literate people in office.
Wonders why someone so technically literate had to fake his c02 experiment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
And of course we have his Jan 26th, 2006 'end of the world' prediction.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/10/al-gores-doomsday-countdown.html
i keep hoping this is some elaborate super secret spy ruse but the more I watch the incompetence the more I realize its just incompetence.
doh!
put a stick in it. The hockey stick is a complete fraud!
So grace us with you brilliance and tell us how this is wrong or taken out of context or any other bullshit you may have.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
face it - you have been scammed cult boy!
Ha. cult boy - echo of lies. Lay off the crack pipe!
Its so evident your claim of being a former "skeptic" is such bullshit. If you were, you would understand at least something about the science, would never have claimed co2 is detrimental to plant life and you most certainly would not ignore the thousands of dissenting scientists.
Thats right - thousands of scientists call bullshit on the theory. Some were even part of the inner circle.
But you never were a "skeptic". You have always been a fanatic, kool aid drinking, brainwashed cult boy.
All you know is what they want you to know and you are just fine with that. So enjoy your little cult and remember - you will always be a major fail.
And this is why I call you cult boy. You are so mindlessly brainwashed you cant even see truth when it slaps you in the face.
You clearly have some issues and suffer psychotic delusions (eg. co2 detrimental to plants!)
big bad co2 huh. what a fucking dumb ass. bye bye cult boy.
Take that!
The Fine Print: The following link is owned by whoever owns it. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity (as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself.
skeptic have been saying this all along. Unfortunately, your so called "scientist" can only admit this behind close doors. lmfao.
i have to start calling you fail boy. lol
ok cult boy, so where is the proof that co2 causes warming?
and while your at it, tell me how this is taken out of context. http://junkscience.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-jones-briffa-say-mann-hokey-stick-on-dodgy-ground/
But then I educated myself about the facts.
the consensus position of 97-99% of all climate scientists
lmfao! Sock puppet drops the consensus myth. How many scientist participated? Hundreds, Thousands, Millions?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
Aside from that, the entire premise is absurd and runs counter to any scientific methodology.
Now crawl back under your rock. Your self humiliation is embarrassing to watch.
Your Mad!
The fact is we do not know why it has warmed. A sect of Scientists performed some amazing acrobatics with data and developed a theory that co2 is the cause. That is all you have pal and there are many scientists that reject this theory and many offering alternatives.
If you think co2 is detrimental to food production, you are a raging idiot. Even the pot growers know this one and use co2 to its full glory to produce that kind bud you crave. In fact, they use it at concentrations far greater than our current atmospheric readings. CO2 is steroids for plants. They thrive on it!
You are totally brainwashed and its sad really. So committed to something you know shit about and too damn lazy to actually investigate the crap you are being fed.
I think your generation refers to it as being IN the matrix.
Bullshit. The models have not been accurate. The exact opposite is true and its why they turn to rear projections. Smoke and mirrors cult boy.
The only fact is: We have/had warming. Nothing more or less. Why it warmed is all theory and you still cant establish if it is bad or not. Higher co2 results in higher food production- thats plant science 101 and its why greenhouses pump in tons of it every day. Cold is disastrous. Climate has never been stable and always changes. We now are seeing signs of cooling that even the ipcc is starting to recognize. Those are facts cult boy and nowhere in there do we see co2 having anything to do with temp aside from a circular collection of activists/reviewers pushing that theory. There are many other theories but you chose to latch on to a particular one and you don't even know why.
But I know why...your cult boy and you will believe anything they tell you.
For a fun preview of what we're in for, check out the events of 1315-22.
Im intrigued. Did co2 cause this event as well?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
perfect timing!
One of their cult members stumbles in reciting Hansens latest edicts just to prove my point.
down-twinkles hkmwbz, down-twinkles. Being brainwashed is not cool!
Touche! Thinkprogess.com Hard to top a crew that thinks the IPCC is the "Council of Nicaea" producing our articles of faith that shall not be challenged or questioned."
So, what skeptic data have you read that "disagrees with your conclusion"?
we are past the point of the last Irreversible claim... and the one before that... and the one before that...
sheesh. The classic William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew debate settled this a long time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NixhL0CoH2s
perhaps i shouldn't assume your one of those warmist religious freaks.
If you are, the irony of these two agreeing that warming has stopped, you cant conclude shit from the land surface data and the ipcc has problems is priceless. Thanks for pointing that out.
If your not, well. Welcome to the club i guess. Now move along and argue with someone else. cheerio.
here's the money quote: "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."
lmfao.
"Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous. He thinks there is a pause, that is probably associated with AMO/PDO. So I am ok with this interpretation."
" We also discussed problems with the IPCC, Climategate issues, etc., and we tend to mostly agree on all this. "
Did you even read it or was it too much information for you?
Now... the denialists on SlashDot are saying ..
Such a weak strawman. No wonder you had to post as Anonymous Coward...
The real news of this story is that the co author slammed him, accused him of hiding data and put forth more data that shows you are basically full of shit.
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
how smug of you. 2 sec google work hit this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/the-surfacestations-org-paper-accepted/
Being that you are the arbiter of who qualifies as a scientist, perhaps you would like to share your qualifications to such. Any published peer-reviewed scientific work to back yourself up?
you must be right because you said so.
He is an American meteorologist, AMS holder and conducts scientific analysis of weather stations. What does that blogger know about weather and climate. To be a real climate scientist you must be in bed with WWF, some other offshoot or labeled one by Al Gore. Everyone knows that!
you'd be well advised to ignore everything Watts says.
Now this is a perfect example of science denial. "Ignore him and his research because... I said so"