Another fun climate change thread

Okay folks, take note that the unfocused here are ignoring the clear examples of deception and fraud of the members of the IPCC that I've posted. He has elected to refer to these incriminating emails as "buzzwords." He has no explanation for them because their contents are clear, and so this is his modus operandi.

 

Actually, if you go through this thread, you'll see that you have posted no data, and have only posted your complaints.

 

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What kind of a person is Mann? And please, don't hold back!

 

Lol what a joke

The man is funded by Exxon and has no background in climate science and you really think you can convince anyone his audit has any integrity?

 

That's not what the Hadley Met Centre team thought:

Last week we exposed absurd errors, brutal adjustments and an almost complete lack of quality control (was there any at all?) in the key HadCRUT4 data. The IPCC’s favorite set is maintained (I’m feeling generous) by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU in the UK.

Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. They don’t confirm or discount any of his new claims specifically. But they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “any errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not.

They don’t mention the killer issue of the adjustments for site-moves at all — that’s the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.

That's not what the Hadley Met Centre team thought:

Last week we exposed absurd errors, brutal adjustments and an almost complete lack of quality control (was there any at all?) in the key HadCRUT4 data. The IPCC’s favorite set is maintained (I’m feeling generous) by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU in the UK.


Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. They don’t confirm or discount any of his new claims specifically. But they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “any errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not.


They don’t mention the killer issue of the adjustments for site-moves at all — that’s the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And I was hoping to get your opinion on Mann . . .​

 

No, you asked:

You are free to disagree with the answer.

 

You are 62 apparently. That explains a lot.

 

But you've provided no answer to disagree with.

 

And now take note of how the unfocused has been reduced to relying on an ad hominem to make his point; otherwise known as a failure.

 

Yes I and the entire scientific community have failed. You alone have deconstructed years of research. I just wonder how you are so smart.

This is why I state you age. You don't change the minds of old men. I don't think of it as an attack just a statement of your generation. You hate young people lecturing you.

 

Yes, my answer is it clearly looks like an attempt to make the scientific consensus on global warming look malicious and wrong.

 

Unmasking the source of climate alarm:

FACT The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) was established under UN auspices in 1988. It does not carry out scientific research. It is the basis for some governments embracing climate alarm.

FACT Initially, the UN IPCC embraced and widely touted the Hockey Stick temperature graph even though it bypassed scientific peer review processes.
The UN IPCC’s hockey stick temperature graph proven to be a falsity.

FACT Initially claimed as proof that human activity causes global warming, the ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature graph by Mann et al (1998) is the foundation for Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and of the argument that human activity caused global warming. It was used extensively in UN IPCC reports only to subsequently be proved an unscientific fabrication and dropped by the UN IPCC—after the UN IPCC used the graph to foster world-wide the unfounded illusion of rapid, unusual rising of global temperatures.

FACT The graph’s construction bypassed peer review processes and without proof contradicted hundreds of scientists by falsely purporting Earth’s recent temperatures to be far hotter than at any time in the previous 1,000 years. It is a fabrication discredited by scientists worldwide. Many scientists have validated two Canadian statisticians McKitrick and McIntyre in exposing unscientific and error-filled processes used to manipulate data and fabricate the hockey stick graph. Michaels (2005 chapter 2), Singer (2008), McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), Wegman in chapter 2 of the book by Canadian environmentalist Solomon (2008).

FACT Recently, it was confirmed (Jolis, 2009 and McIntyre, 2009b) that the other similar graph by Keith Briffa was fabricated through selective and misleading use of data. With appropriate data selection the purported elevation of recent temperatures disappears.

Significantly, both Mann and Briffa appear deeply enmeshed in the apparent scandal of misrepresenting climate and fabricating unfounded climate alarm at the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), a key contributor to UN IPCC reports.

FACT Joining the UN IPCC’s falsified temperature graph, the UN IPCC’s depiction of continually rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels has been exposed as fraudulent. Solomon (2008).

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf

 

It's difficult to argue rationally with such idiotic statements.

I am reminded of the saying if you play chess with a pigeon it will only shit on the board and say it has won. All the evidence is there.

 

Okay folks, take note of the unfocused's attempt to get me to engage in a firefight for the purpose of derailing the thread. He has shown no data and no rebuttal other than to make an issue of my age . . . which is no rebuttal at all . . . just an extension of his last fail.

 

Ah well, MeAgain did an admirable job playing chess so far!

 

There is a lot of data. I can post one link if you feel I do not have information.

I'm sure you would not claim to know more than NASA. You are so worked up I feel like my old man joke is sort of true.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

Zbigniew Jaworowski is an internationally eminent atmospheric scientist, ice core expert and participant in the UN Environmental Program, UNEP.

FACT Quoting Jaworowski in Solomon (2008): Scientists have been studying and measuring “CO2 since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and they have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct real-time measurements. These measurements …….. demonstrate, for example, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have (naturally) fluctuated greatly and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today’s levels”. Nevertheless, Jaworowski says: “the IPCC rejects these direct measurements, some taken by Nobel Prize winners”.

FACT Beck (2007) supported by Carter (2007 ) reveals 90,000 past accurate atmospheric CO2 measurements over the last 180 years show the UN IPCC ignores the science that proves CO2 has, in recent times, been 15-40% higher than current levels.

FACT Jaworowski (Solomon, 2008) reveals the UN IPCC fabricated graphs depicting rising CO2 by unscientifically and without foundation moving relative to its axes a plot of inaccurate CO2 recordings made from ice cores. That is fraud.

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf

 

Where is this data coming from? You don't link or cite

not good in peer reveiws

 

From your link:

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

95% certain. That sounds scientific.

I am not the one who got themselves worked up. You started the ad hominem shit. Or has something you do caused you to forget that?

 

It sounds more scientific if it was 100% certain?