A Quick Update on "Climate Gate" Comedy: Denialist Follies, Part Trois

Cypress said:
Wow. Unbelievable.

You're going to pass off an outdated wikipedia link as a credible source? And try to sneak that in under the radar? That's hilarious.

You should have at least scanned your outdated wiki article before posting it.

Here's your problem dude....

Most of those quotes from "scientists" are old. Most are five to ten years old, and are based on the third IPCC assessment from 2001.. It's all right there in your wiki link. Dude, the science has evolved since 2001. Your link is wildly outdated. Try again. Please try to come up with something current, and from a well established and credible scientific institution.


Second, your own wikipedia article admits they use a very broad definition of "scientist"




Do you ask botanists for their expert opinion on String Theory and quantum mechanics?

Oh, you don't? Neither do I. People who have trained for years to be climate scientists, and who done credible climate research and published in peer reviewed journals are given more credence than some electrical engineer or optics physicist.



This is getting ridiculous man.

You wingnuts NEVER provide anything that is credible. Every time I click on your links its to some wildly out of date wikipedia article; to some blog run by a mentally disturbed "mushroom researcher", to some "climate audit" blog run by a guy who sells mining company stocks for a living; or to some righting british tabloid or obscure blog no one's ever heard of.

Take the Climate Gate Clown Challenge, bro':

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3



My suggestion to folks is to never, ever take the links a science-denier posts seriously

. Unless its from a well known, credible, and internationally recognized scientific body with expertise in climate science. Otherwise, you'll be wasting huge amounts of time on bullshit, half-truths, distortions, or outdated shit from people who aren't even respected climate experts





edit: Much obliged to the posters who actually are scientifically literate. Mott and Thorn. Cheers. Science denial is more hilarious than a barrel of monkeys.
Click to expand...
Wiki isn't the source, the references were the sources. It is weak to say that the science is unimpeachable when peer review includes a review of your own work.

It's almost impossible to take you seriously when you ignore that the man who got it all going admits that nobody can check his data as it is irrecoverable, yet his work is unimpeachable? A portion of the latest review that you posted about was actually reviewed by one of the co-authors. That isn't peer review, it is bad science.
 
Damocles said:
Wiki isn't the source, the references were the sources. It is weak to say that the science is unimpeachable when peer review includes a review of your own work.

It's almost impossible to take you seriously when you ignore that the man who got it all going admits that nobody can check his data as it is irrecoverable, yet his work is unimpeachable? A portion of the latest review that you posted about was actually reviewed by one of the co-authors. That isn't peer review, it is bad science.
Click to expand...

Evidently, you didn't read the subsequent posts by Zap and Cypress where they detail exactly how and why the Wikipedia source isn't up to snuff. Please do so, because you look really foolish with all the condescending rants in lieu of those explanations.
 
And none of the warmers have a thing to say about the link I posted, as usual.
See, even when you post stuff, they ignore it.
 
tinfoil said:
And none of the warmers have a thing to say about the link I posted, as usual.
See, even when you post stuff, they ignore it.
Click to expand...

I get confused when they use descriptions like "Denialists" to describe those who don't accept the Al Gore MYTH of man-made Global Warming. Seems like "Denialist" would be a term you would apply to those who have no scientific basis for what they support. They are clearly in denial of the truth... clearly in denial of science... but they call those who don't buy into their stupidity this, and it's confusing as hell sometimes... then I read who is posting it, and I totally understand.

Prissy? Can you give me any idea of just how long this is going to continue? Do we have to listen to your stupidity for 20 more years? 30 more? Or maybe we have to wait a few generations for all your inbreeding to run its course, and you idiots to die off? Perhaps it's gonna be like the Elvis thing... about every so many years, someone reports an Elvis sighting and the tabloids go crazy, people getting all excited that maybe they were right and Elvis IS still alive... is it gonna be like that? We gonna get a new fake report from some moron calling himself a scientist every couple of years, just enough far-fetched stupidity to gin up excitement, before realizing it's yet another ruse and a hoax? I guess you can keep this going that way a long time, there are a LOT of really stupid people in the world, but I think very soon, you are all going to be relegated to your annual convention, alongside the Roswell Conspiracy believers and the Fake Moonshot morons.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Evidently, you didn't read the subsequent posts by Zap and Cypress where they detail exactly how and why the Wikipedia source isn't up to snuff. Please do so, because you look really foolish with all the condescending rants in lieu of those explanations.
Click to expand...
They didn't detail squat. They just repeated "It's wiki" and ignored the sourcing.
 
Damocles said:
Wiki isn't the source, the references were the sources. It is weak to say that the science is unimpeachable when peer review includes a review of your own work.

It's almost impossible to take you seriously when you ignore that the man who got it all going admits that nobody can check his data as it is irrecoverable, yet his work is unimpeachable? A portion of the latest review that you posted about was actually reviewed by one of the co-authors. That isn't peer review, it is bad science.
Click to expand...


It's not plausible that you, Tinfoil, and Dixie have uncovered a massive conspiracy, or demonstrated that IPCC is fraudulent. The world's best scientific minds and organizations would have sniffed out fraud and deception long before some message board hacks and rightwing blogs did. Why hasn't the US. National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, or NASA been able to penetrate the conspiracies, and scientific fraud that you, tinfoil, dixie, bravo, and superfreak have allegedly rooted out?

What your asking me to buy is preposterous. And I think you actually know it.
 
Wildly outdated wikipedia link of “list of scientists who oppose global warming:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/220px-Satellite_Temperatures.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/220px-Satellite_Temperatures.png

For comedic value, I spent a few more minutes looking at this hilariously bad and outdated wikipedia list of “scientists” who “oppose” global warming.

Just how bad, and how out of date is this wikipedia list?

The only actual “scientist” on that “Wikipedia” list who even had a current and plausible connection to climate science research, has testified, under oath, that based on newer evidence he concurs that data shows that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years to due to human activities and the burning of fossil fuels


I automatically dismiss most of the other scientists on the wikipedia list, because botanists, economists, astronomers, geographers, hydrogeologists are not established climate science experts. And I automatically dismiss all the old, retired geezers on the list. They haven’t done any peer reviewed research since the Jurassic, and are wildly out of date.

The dude who wrote this Wikipedia link itself acknowledges that he/she has a very loose and flimsy criteria for what they consider to be “scientists” who are “opposed” to global warming. This Wikipedia list basically includes anyone who has a science or technical degree, and who has published at least once in their life…whether or not they, or their publicantion had any relation to actual climate science. Rotflmao.

Wow, talk about casting a massively wide net, in a quest to try to find anyone who “opposes” global warming. I’m sure I could travel the world and find thousands of people who happen to have a university degree in botany or hydrology who “oppose” global warming – for emotional or partisan reasons.


John Christy is the only “scientist” on this hilarious Wikipedia list with any plausible connection to actual climate science, and is routinely held out by the science denier community as their pre-emminent scientists supporting their science denial position on climate change.

In the Vermont court case on the state’s effort to implement California’s tailpipe emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an “expert” climate-denier witness to rebut the testimony of Dr. James Hansen (a prominent and well respected climate scientist).

What happens when you get John Christ away from the blogs, and away from writing opinion columns in newspapers? What happens when you actually get him under oath, on the official record? This: Christy agrees in large measure that newer evidence shows that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years to due to human activities and the burning of fossil fuels


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Case No. 2:05-cv-302
2007

The Court’s Findings:
Reliability of Hansen’s testimony

“There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ OWN EXPERT, Dr.Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7. (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.

Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. At 175:2- 174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate. Id. at 174:16-23.

The Court finds that Dr. Hansen’s opinions are reliable for
purposes of their admission into evidence.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf
Click to expand...


Outstanding. ?There you have it folks.

Get a wingnut “scientist” under oath, and apparently they don’t feel as compelled to lie as they do on a rightwing blog or a WSJ editorial column.



Take away lesson: science deniers got nothing.

No links to credible and reputable scientific institutions with expertise in climate science.

And a hilarious predisposition to posting utter and easily debunked crap from rightwing blogs, lame and hopelessly outdated Wikipedia links, crackpot websites, and obscure rightwing blogs nobody has ever hear off.
 
Last edited:
This would actually make a good Wikipedia entry.

List of People Who Think Climate Science, CRU, and IPCC are full of Lying, Conspiratorial, Liberal Climate Scientists, bent on Fraud and Disinformation:

Dixie
Tinfoil
Bravo
Superfreak
Southernman
Various and sundry rightwing blogs
Various rightwing editorial columnists who don’t actually do their own peer-reviewed climate research
Click to expand...


List of Scientific Organization Who Have Stated the it is Unequivocal - or that it is an Established Scientific Fact - that the Earth is Warming, and it is Very Likely that Humans have Caused Most of the Warming of the Last Half Century:

US National Academy of Sciences,
The National Academies of Science of Every Developed Nation on the Planet
US National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institute
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adminstration
Department of Energy
NASA
Department of Defense
US Environmental Protection Agency
The Pew Research Institute
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
the American Geophysical Union,
the American Meteorological Society,
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (e.g., Stanford, Johns Hopkins University, UC Berkley, etc)
MIT Center for Global Change Science
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
UK Met Office
Click to expand...
 
Climate Gate Comedy Update:

Science Deniers around the World being asked to Apologize for Smearing Scientists, and for Lying about the fabricated and phony "Climate Gate scandal"...


New Zealand rightwing Party is asked to apologize for promoting and parroting the slanderous Climate Gate comedy:

Murdoch sorry for ClimateGate - ACT's turn now
Tuesday, 29 June 2010, 12:42 pm

Murdoch says sorry over ClimateGate. What about ACT?

The Green Party is calling on climate deniers like the ACT Party to apologise to the New Zealand climate scientists whose reputations they tried to besmirch in light of the grovelling apology by Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers in the UK over AmazonGate, part of the ClimateGate series of allegations.
“ACT has been promoting ClimateGate and has used baseless allegations to drag climate scientists through the mud in order to undermine policies it opposes, like the Emissions Trading Scheme,” Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said.

Murdoch’s papers The Times and The Sunday Times were forced to apologise for an article that falsely claimed climate change impacts on the Amazon were bogus. The scientist concerned complained to the UK’s Press Complaints Commission against The Sunday Times, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change.

The ACT Party has used parliamentary privilege to attempt to besmirch the reputation of New Zealand climate scientists connected to the University of East Anglia, the university at the heart of the ClimateGate allegations.
“In light of this apology over AmazonGate, and the University of East Anglia being cleared by reports from the UK House of Commons, Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel and the original peer review, the last nails are now being driven into the coffin of these false allegations,” Dr Norman said.

“It’s time for ACT and the other climate deniers to own up and apologise to the scientists involved, particularly those based in New Zealand.

“We need robust science to underpin Government policy, not a climate of fear where good scientists are afraid to share what they know.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1006/S00451.htm
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
It's not plausible that you, Tinfoil, and Dixie have uncovered a massive conspiracy, or demonstrated that IPCC is fraudulent. The world's best scientific minds and organizations would have sniffed out fraud and deception long before some message board hacks and rightwing blogs did. Why hasn't the US. National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, or NASA been able to penetrate the conspiracies, and scientific fraud that you, tinfoil, dixie, bravo, and superfreak have allegedly rooted out?

What your asking me to buy is preposterous. And I think you actually know it.
Click to expand...

Tell you what leg humper....

Provide the DATA... not just your beloved government lackies writing about it... provide the RAW DATA THAT SHOWS MAN IS CAUSING THE MAJORITY of the warming.

Do that.... just ONCE...

I show you a link with JONES... HEAD OF EAST ANGLIA... STATING CLEARLY THAT THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER.....

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
Click to expand...

Yet you ignore it.

I show you a direct quote from JONES... that the globe has NOT warmed by a significant level since 1995.

yet you try to give some line of bullshit about not being able to create a statistical regression analysis over such a 'short' period of time. Which is complete nonsense.

You ask if a family doctor should be discussing neurosurgery, then ignore the fact that your beloved master jones states quite clearly in his interview with the BBC that he really can't comment on natural climate changes because :

"This area is slightly outside my area of expertise"

Tell us Cypress... HOW is it that the HEAD of CLIMATE study at one of your unimpeachable government funded institutes.... doesn't even feel comfortable discussing the NATURAL influences on temperature.

Tell us leg humper.... WHY is it that Jones is willing to accept the admittedly limited and unreliable data for Africa and South America when it suits his needs, but is unwilling to extrapolate data from those same regions in the case of the Medieval data?

As for 2001 being 'outdated'.... note to leg humper.... the 'warming' or 'hockey stick' occurred PRIOR to 2001. Since then, we have remained warm, but have not continued warming. Pretending otherwise simply shows what a true moron you are.

You again try to attack a source rather than refute anything they say. You ask for peer reviewed pieces and then ignore them when provided.

You laugh at the fact that they don't all have 'climatologist' as their primary focus (even though many DO have it).... while at the same time, your beloved master Jones doesn't even feel comfortable discussing NATURAL influences because it is 'slightly outside his area of expertise' (translation: I am paid to show MAN caused global warming, why would I bother looking at natural influences)
 
From the Wiki site.... Good old leg humping Cypress pretends that all of the source material is 'prior to 2001/outdated/written by old people'....

# David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[32]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st285/

written in 2006

Just one... but I am sure our resident stalker will find some excuse to dismiss him... maybe he has brown hair or something
 
Superfreak said:
Tell you what leg humper....

Provide the DATA... not just your beloved government lackies writing about it... provide the RAW DATA THAT SHOWS MAN IS CAUSING THE MAJORITY of the warming.

Do that.... just ONCE...

I show you a link with JONES... HEAD OF EAST ANGLIA... STATING CLEARLY THAT THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER.....



Yet you ignore it.

I show you a direct quote from JONES... that the globe has NOT warmed by a significant level since 1995.

yet you try to give some line of bullshit about not being able to create a statistical regression analysis over such a 'short' period of time. Which is complete nonsense.

You ask if a family doctor should be discussing neurosurgery, then ignore the fact that your beloved master jones states quite clearly in his interview with the BBC that he really can't comment on natural climate changes because :

"This area is slightly outside my area of expertise"

Tell us Cypress... HOW is it that the HEAD of CLIMATE study at one of your unimpeachable government funded institutes.... doesn't even feel comfortable discussing the NATURAL influences on temperature.

Tell us leg humper.... WHY is it that Jones is willing to accept the admittedly limited and unreliable data for Africa and South America when it suits his needs, but is unwilling to extrapolate data from those same regions in the case of the Medieval data?

As for 2001 being 'outdated'.... note to leg humper.... the 'warming' or 'hockey stick' occurred PRIOR to 2001. Since then, we have remained warm, but have not continued warming. Pretending otherwise simply shows what a true moron you are.

You again try to attack a source rather than refute anything they say. You ask for peer reviewed pieces and then ignore them when provided.

You laugh at the fact that they don't all have 'climatologist' as their primary focus (even though many DO have it).... while at the same time, your beloved master Jones doesn't even feel comfortable discussing NATURAL influences because it is 'slightly outside his area of expertise' (translation: I am paid to show MAN caused global warming, why would I bother looking at natural influences)
Click to expand...

Well aint that the pot calling the kettle black. That's exactly what you've been doing. Only it turns out that the attacks you made on the credibility of climate scientist were wrong and unfounded.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well aint that the pot calling the kettle black. That's exactly what you've been doing. Only it turns out that the attacks you made on the credibility of climate scientist were wrong and unfounded.
Click to expand...

Really.... so stating that the debate is 'not over' (which is the same thing the head of East Anglia CRU says)... is wrong?

Stating that there has been no significant warming since 1995 (which is the same thing the head of East Anglia CRU says) .... is wrong???

Stating that an internal review is biased is wrong?

Stating that an 'independent' review by government appointed lackeys is not really independent is wrong?

If BP were to appoint 'independent' reviewers and they came back and said BP did nothing wrong in the oil spill.... would YOU believe them too?

If any other scientific field came back and stated that they had discarded much of the raw data they used.... would you just 'trust' their research?

My point to Cypress and the rest of the brain dead fear mongers is that the debate is far from over. That the models they use are flawed. Just look at the data sources.... in the US... a country that has a very reliable data set... 1998 was the warmest year on record.

On CONTINENTS.... like Africa and South America... where data is unreliable... take a look at the station distributions... very sparse, typically low altitude and coastal... which are then used to extrapolate large areas.

Same for much of Canada, the Antarctic etc....

The areas that showed reliable data for the medieval period showed that time was WARMER than it is today... but because the rest of the globe had 'unreliable' data, they say it is 'inconclusive'... yet by their own admission the data from Africa and South America TODAY is also fairly unreliable... yet THAT data is used.

Tell us Mott... WHY is it that they are trying so desperately to STOP calling it AGW and are now focused on calling it climate change? Why the shift Mott?

If man is causing warming... why the shift? Surely man isn't causing warming AND cooling periods due to emissions of green house gasses....

Again... my point is and will continue to be that the debate on man's influence is not over. In my opinion only a brain dead lemming fear monger would believe otherwise.
 
Superfreak said:
Really.... so stating that the debate is 'not over' (which is the same thing the head of East Anglia CRU says)... is wrong?

Stating that there has been no significant warming since 1995 (which is the same thing the head of East Anglia CRU says) .... is wrong???

Stating that an internal review is biased is wrong?

Stating that an 'independent' review by government appointed lackeys is not really independent is wrong?

If BP were to appoint 'independent' reviewers and they came back and said BP did nothing wrong in the oil spill.... would YOU believe them too?

If any other scientific field came back and stated that they had discarded much of the raw data they used.... would you just 'trust' their research?

My point to Cypress and the rest of the brain dead fear mongers is that the debate is far from over. That the models they use are flawed. Just look at the data sources.... in the US... a country that has a very reliable data set... 1998 was the warmest year on record.

On CONTINENTS.... like Africa and South America... where data is unreliable... take a look at the station distributions... very sparse, typically low altitude and coastal... which are then used to extrapolate large areas.

Same for much of Canada, the Antarctic etc....

The areas that showed reliable data for the medieval period showed that time was WARMER than it is today... but because the rest of the globe had 'unreliable' data, they say it is 'inconclusive'... yet by their own admission the data from Africa and South America TODAY is also fairly unreliable... yet THAT data is used.

Tell us Mott... WHY is it that they are trying so desperately to STOP calling it AGW and are now focused on calling it climate change? Why the shift Mott?

If man is causing warming... why the shift? Surely man isn't causing warming AND cooling periods due to emissions of green house gasses....

Again... my point is and will continue to be that the debate on man's influence is not over. In my opinion only a brain dead lemming fear monger would believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
No to none of that. However that doesn't make you science deniars right. I mean Cypress does have a valid point. Your argument has a serious credibility gap. He's naming some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world who support the conclusion of anthropogenic climage change. You're quoting a couple of cranks, some right wing blogs and a number of political op-ed pieces. You arguments are very unconvincing to anyone with scientific credentials. Particulary someone with post graduate credentials like Cypress and Thorn.

My argument to you, as a person who admits that they are not well read on this topic is, convince me. Show me the current peer reviewed data that supports your contention. Line your ducks up.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No to none of that. However that doesn't make you science deniars right. I mean Cypress does have a valid point. Your argument has a serious credibility gap. He's naming some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world who support the conclusion of anthropogenic climage change. You're quoting a couple of cranks, some right wing blogs and a number of political op-ed pieces. You arguments are very unconvincing to anyone with scientific credentials. Particulary someone with post graduate credentials like Cypress and Thorn.

My argument to you, as a person who admits that they are not well read on this topic is, convince me. Show me the current peer reviewed data that supports your contention. Line your ducks up.
Click to expand...

1) Stating the debate is not over and that there are serious flaws with the fear mongers 'reports' is accurate.

2) He is naming GOVERNMENT agencies that have a direct interest in promoting the fact that man is causing global warming. They are every bit as biased as a group funded by BP would be.

3) Calling people 'science deniers' because they don't believe the 'debate is over' just shows that you are one of the brain dead fear mongering lemmings I was referring to.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
It's not plausible that you, Tinfoil, and Dixie have uncovered a massive conspiracy, or demonstrated that IPCC is fraudulent. The world's best scientific minds and organizations would have sniffed out fraud and deception long before some message board hacks and rightwing blogs did. Why hasn't the US. National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, or NASA been able to penetrate the conspiracies, and scientific fraud that you, tinfoil, dixie, bravo, and superfreak have allegedly rooted out?

What your asking me to buy is preposterous. And I think you actually know it.
Click to expand...

Wow, this dude's mind works in strange ways.

His view is that fraud could never happen simply because the "best scientific minds" WOULD have found it.

LOL that's muther fucking nuts!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top