Scientist who said climate change sceptics were proved wrong accused of hiding truth

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh, right. We were always at war with Eurasia.

Lol... um ok... thanks for your valued input... insightful as always.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Do you deny that stooges paid for by Exxon et al exist? Do you believe dirty energy producers are just going to sit back benignly? The REAL truth does go back the 1950's. It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by the climate deniers. So you and the freak spew PR, not science.

I asked you a simple question and you go off on a rant. Do you seriously think that Goldman Sachs don't have paid advocates to influence the debate and enable carbon trading to occur?

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4196&mn=24459&pt=msg&mid=6780223

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So in other words, you are just like the idiots Cypress and Mott. You think 'the debate is over'? Despite reports from CERN, despite the FACT that we have seen no significant warming for over a decade?

yeah... there is a name for people like you.... 'religious nut'

Ya know you're such a fucking moron, not to mention intellectually dishonest about this topic. Oh...and did you know that the only reputal source you ever sited came out and admited that he was wrong about the earths warming?

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Here's the problem with your argument and what makes it so Dixiesque. There is vast consensus in the scientific community and volumes of peer reviewed data supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting our climate. Now I know, like Dixie, you don't have much of a scientific back ground, so let me explain something to you. ALL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS TENTATIVE. That is to say, the debate is NEVER over on any given scientific observation, hypothesis, theory or law. The fact that you don't know this only illustrates you as a neophyte in science but a political hack as well.

Now if you were the least bit intellectually honest about this you would admit that large numbers of scientist who are vastly better qualified by education and the field work and research they have done and had peer reviewed by others more qualified by far then you have built this consensus. The information they have gathered supporting their claim is staggering and compeling. Having said that, whether you want to hide your head under a rock and deny this consensu is completly up to you as it is largely irrelevent to the discussion. The scietific consesus exist and is not the least little bit controversial with in the scientific communty.

Now if you were honest you would admit that this consensus does exist, that is supported by vast volumes of reliable data. Then, if you were honest (which you are not) you would argue that what is controversial is "what are the specific causes of anthroprogenic climate change (ACC)? What are the specific mechanisms involved with ACC? Cause these are not completely or well known and the current hypthesis are very controversial and that the scientific debate about these causes and mechanisms are hotly debated in the scientific community and then you could honestly extrapolate from that that maybe until our knowledge of these causes and mechanisms are better known and understood it wouldn't be wise to create all encompassing public policy to combat ACC as those public policies could cause more harm then do good.

But no, you want to follow the path of Dixie and be a science denier insteaod of honestly accepting the data and consensus that has been built with in the scientific community and addressing the real controversies of ACC. So instead you rely on the perveyors of Ostrich science, such as, the Petroleum Institute of America and crank mining engineers from Montana and then you wonder why those with actual scientific credentials, like Cypress and I laugh at you.

Well go on with your devine comedy as it is hillareous watching you make a fool of yourself on this topic!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

SF, this is sad. The BEST study confirmed what the other agencies already reported: the Earth is warming. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about cause with you, but ignoring the fact of warming is insane at this point:



Here's a chart:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

You're wasting your time Amaizeing one.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Like I said, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing cause with you. I'd just like to reach a point where simple, obvious fundamental facts can be agreed to, like the fact that global warming exists, whatever the cause.

Exactly and that's why Freaks argument is intellectually dishonest as I've pointed out.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Ya know you're such a fucking moron, not to mention intellectually dishonest about this topic. Oh...and did you know that the only reputal source you ever sited came out and admited that he was wrong about the earths warming?

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Here's the problem with your argument and what makes it so Dixiesque. There is vast consensus in the scientific community and volumes of peer reviewed data supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting our climate. Now I know, like Dixie, you don't have much of a scientific back ground, so let me explain something to you. ALL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS TENTATIVE. That is to say, the debate is NEVER over on any given scientific observation, hypothesis, theory or law. The fact that you don't know this only illustrates you as a neophyte in science but a political hack as well.

Now if you were the least bit intellectually honest about this you would admit that large numbers of scientist who are vastly better qualified by education and the field work and research they have done and had peer reviewed by others more qualified by far then you have built this consensus. The information they have gathered supporting their claim is staggering and compeling. Having said that, whether you want to hide your head under a rock and deny this consensu is completly up to you as it is largely irrelevent to the discussion. The scietific consesus exist and is not the least little bit controversial with in the scientific communty.

Now if you were honest you would admit that this consensus does exist, that is supported by vast volumes of reliable data. Then, if you were honest (which you are not) you would argue that what is controversial is "what are the specific causes of anthroprogenic climate change (ACC)? What are the specific mechanisms involved with ACC? Cause these are not completely or well known and the current hypthesis are very controversial and that the scientific debate about these causes and mechanisms are hotly debated in the scientific community and then you could honestly extrapolate from that that maybe until our knowledge of these causes and mechanisms are better known and understood it wouldn't be wise to create all encompassing public policy to combat ACC as those public policies could cause more harm then do good.

But no, you want to follow the path of Dixie and be a science denier insteaod of honestly accepting the data and consensus that has been built with in the scientific community and addressing the real controversies of ACC. So instead you rely on the perveyors of Ostrich science, such as, the Petroleum Institute of America and crank mining engineers from Montana and then you wonder why those with actual scientific credentials, like Cypress and I laugh at you.

Well go on with your devine comedy as it is hillareous watching you make a fool of yourself on this topic!

Neither you or Bfgrn are answering the question I posed, are you saying that Judith Curry is a stooge for Exxon and Co? Here are her own thoughts on the issue without any third party interpretation.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ya know you're such a fucking moron, not to mention intellectually dishonest about this topic. Oh...and did you know that the only reputal source you ever sited came out and admited that he was wrong about the earths warming?

Once again you show just how pathetic and full of shit you are. Once again, we are talking not about the earth 'warming' from the 1950's to the late 1990's. That has never been disputed by myself. What HAS been disputed is the so called 'consensus' of the flat earth fear mongering global warming neanderthals like yourself. You champion idiots like Cypress who simply stomped his feet, shouted 'consensus' and 'peer reviewed' over and over again claiming the debate was over. Despite the FACT that there has been no significant warming since the late 1990's. NONE. This despite CO2 levels continuing to increase over that time frame.

Here's the problem with your argument and what makes it so Dixiesque. There is vast consensus in the scientific community and volumes of peer reviewed data supporting the conclusion that human activity is impacting our climate.

Yes, there has been 'vast' amounts of 'peer reviewed' claims from the fear mongers. No doubt. Yet there has also been a great deal of criticism that the fear mongers have tried to silence. Idiots like you ignore what comes out of CERN, from actual climatologists (whom your champion Cypress tried to dismiss due to 'the University of Delaware is laughable' or 'no one has heard of this guy'.... two completely bogus claims)

Now I know, like Dixie, you don't have much of a scientific back ground, so let me explain something to you. ALL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS TENTATIVE. That is to say, the debate is NEVER over on any given scientific observation, hypothesis, theory or law. The fact that you don't know this only illustrates you as a neophyte in science but a political hack as well.

LMAO... is your pathetic attempts at mentioning Dixie your way of trying to discredit what I have stated on this topic? Is it? Really? How pathetically weak of you. You actually claim above that I am the one who doesn't understand the debate isn't over? You truly are a fucking idiot. My position ALL ALONG is that the debate isn't over you fucking half wit. My point is that your precious 'consensus' crowd did everything they could to avoid any criticism, which is a slap in the fact to what any true SCIENTIST would do. They do not believe in the scientific method any more than you do. You just proclaim to do so, all the while ignoring when your precious consensus shouters completely avoid its use.

Now if you were the least bit intellectually honest about this you would admit that large numbers of scientist who are vastly better qualified by education and the field work and research they have done and had peer reviewed by others more qualified by far then you have built this consensus. The information they have gathered supporting their claim is staggering and compeling. Having said that, whether you want to hide your head under a rock and deny this consensu is completly up to you as it is largely irrelevent to the discussion. The scietific consesus exist and is not the least little bit controversial with in the scientific communty.

LMAO.... It is neither staggering nor compelling. The more it is ACTUALLY reviewed, the more holes appear. Their computer models have been shown to be a complete farce. Yet you still stomp your feet and shout 'they know more, so shut up and believe in the almighty consensus'. Funny, I could have sword you just said the debate is never over, yet here you are stomping your feet once again shouting consensus! all the while pretending their isn't controversy within the scientific community regarding mans effect on global temps.

Now if you were honest you would admit that this consensus does exist, that is supported by vast volumes of reliable data.

It is truly funny how you equate 'being honest' to 'agreeing with what I say, even if it is wrong'.

Then, if you were honest (which you are not) you would argue that what is controversial is "what are the specific causes of anthroprogenic climate change (ACC)?

LMAO... no, an honest person would argue the points that are controversial is 'what is the cause of the warming'... they would not try to limit it to Man. You are simply trying to force the data at that point to point to man so that your masters may regulate you more. As studies, like the recent one from CERN (that you and your religious nuts of global warming ignore) show, there are many other causes that are more likely to explain the warming than CO2.

What are the specific mechanisms involved with ACC? Cause these are not completely or well known and the current hypthesis are very controversial and that the scientific debate about these causes and mechanisms are hotly debated in the scientific community and then you could honestly extrapolate from that that maybe until our knowledge of these causes and mechanisms are better known and understood it wouldn't be wise to create all encompassing public policy to combat ACC as those public policies could cause more harm then do good.

and there we have it.... the entire desire of the fear mongers wrapped up nicely.... this is all about the government getting to regulate via some 'public policy' something that they aren't even sure of.

So tell us Mott....

1) Do you deny the outcome of the CERN data?
2) Do you deny the Earth has not significantly warmed since the late 1990's?
3) Do you deny the fact that despite the lack of warming CO2 levels have risen?
4) Do you deny the fact that the computer models used by the fear mongers have been obliterated by actual data?

But no, you want to follow the path of Dixie and be a science denier insteaod of honestly accepting the data and consensus that has been built with in the scientific community and addressing the real controversies of ACC. So instead you rely on the perveyors of Ostrich science, such as, the Petroleum Institute of America and crank mining engineers from Montana and then you wonder why those with actual scientific credentials, like Cypress and I laugh at you.

And back to the standard deflection: 'u just use oil companies paid for reports'.... blah blah blah... you ignore every single piece by climatologists (who were peer reviewed), you ignore all science that goes against your religious belief, yet you sit here and proclaim that I am the one denying SCIENCE. You truly are an idiot.

Well go on with your devine comedy as it is hillareous watching you make a fool of yourself on this topic!

The only idiot is you Mott. You continually create straw men, you continually lie about what I have stated, you continually try to deflect from all criticism of your fear mongering masters. You have shown just how pathetic you are.

Care to address the actual article in the OP Mott? Or is it time for you to run and hide again?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Neither you or Bfgrn are answering the question I posed, are you saying that Judith Curry is a stooge for Exxon and Co? Here are her own thoughts on the issue without any third party interpretation.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

I didn't answer your question cause I have not read your post.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're wasting your time Amaizeing one.

Yes, posting graphs showing the earth warmed is indeed a waste of time. I am not arguing that it warmed you fucking idiot.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Exactly and that's why Freaks argument is intellectually dishonest as I've pointed out.

So, according to Mott the Fool, my stating that the earth has warmed and that no one is arguing that is somehow intellectually dishonest? You once again show that all you fear mongers can do is create straw men.

Like Cornholio.... he was trying to pretend I stated the earth hadn't warmed. Which was never, ever, my position.

What IS intellectually dishonest, is idiots like the two of you and Bfgrn and Cypress all DENYING THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING OVER THE PAST TEN PLUS YEARS. A point you consistently fail to address.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Once again you show just how pathetic and full of shit you are. Once again, we are talking not about the earth 'warming' from the 1950's to the late 1990's. That has never been disputed by myself. What HAS been disputed is the so called 'consensus' of the flat earth fear mongering global warming neanderthals like yourself. You champion idiots like Cypress who simply stomped his feet, shouted 'consensus' and 'peer reviewed' over and over again claiming the debate was over. Despite the FACT that there has been no significant warming since the late 1990's. NONE. This despite CO2 levels continuing to increase over that time frame.



Yes, there has been 'vast' amounts of 'peer reviewed' claims from the fear mongers. No doubt. Yet there has also been a great deal of criticism that the fear mongers have tried to silence. Idiots like you ignore what comes out of CERN, from actual climatologists (whom your champion Cypress tried to dismiss due to 'the University of Delaware is laughable' or 'no one has heard of this guy'.... two completely bogus claims)



LMAO... is your pathetic attempts at mentioning Dixie your way of trying to discredit what I have stated on this topic? Is it? Really? How pathetically weak of you. You actually claim above that I am the one who doesn't understand the debate isn't over? You truly are a fucking idiot. My position ALL ALONG is that the debate isn't over you fucking half wit. My point is that your precious 'consensus' crowd did everything they could to avoid any criticism, which is a slap in the fact to what any true SCIENTIST would do. They do not believe in the scientific method any more than you do. You just proclaim to do so, all the while ignoring when your precious consensus shouters completely avoid its use.



LMAO.... It is neither staggering nor compelling. The more it is ACTUALLY reviewed, the more holes appear. Their computer models have been shown to be a complete farce. Yet you still stomp your feet and shout 'they know more, so shut up and believe in the almighty consensus'. Funny, I could have sword you just said the debate is never over, yet here you are stomping your feet once again shouting consensus! all the while pretending their isn't controversy within the scientific community regarding mans effect on global temps.



It is truly funny how you equate 'being honest' to 'agreeing with what I say, even if it is wrong'.



LMAO... no, an honest person would argue the points that are controversial is 'what is the cause of the warming'... they would not try to limit it to Man. You are simply trying to force the data at that point to point to man so that your masters may regulate you more. As studies, like the recent one from CERN (that you and your religious nuts of global warming ignore) show, there are many other causes that are more likely to explain the warming than CO2.



and there we have it.... the entire desire of the fear mongers wrapped up nicely.... this is all about the government getting to regulate via some 'public policy' something that they aren't even sure of.

So tell us Mott....

1) Do you deny the outcome of the CERN data?
2) Do you deny the Earth has not significantly warmed since the late 1990's?
3) Do you deny the fact that despite the lack of warming CO2 levels have risen?
4) Do you deny the fact that the computer models used by the fear mongers have been obliterated by actual data?



And back to the standard deflection: 'u just use oil companies paid for reports'.... blah blah blah... you ignore every single piece by climatologists (who were peer reviewed), you ignore all science that goes against your religious belief, yet you sit here and proclaim that I am the one denying SCIENCE. You truly are an idiot.



The only idiot is you Mott. You continually create straw men, you continually lie about what I have stated, you continually try to deflect from all criticism of your fear mongering masters. You have shown just how pathetic you are.

Care to address the actual article in the OP Mott? Or is it time for you to run and hide again?

Hillareous, just fucking hillareous. What's really very funny about this (besided your being a science denier and a passionate one at that) is that on the public policy side we are very close but your so blinded by ideology that you don't even see it. Hillareous, absolutely fucking hillareious!

No, I'm not about to even enter a debate with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. It would be a complete waste of my time and no one is gonna change your mind! LOL

You can stick your head in the sand all you want but until you admit that their is a broad consensus with in the scientific community supporting ACC then you're arguments really fall into the realm of comedy. I'll just stick to reading it and having a good chuckle.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Neither you or Bfgrn are answering the question I posed, are you saying that Judith Curry is a stooge for Exxon and Co? Here are her own thoughts on the issue without any third party interpretation.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

Don't expect them to read anything. She is obviously a paid oil shill because she said something somewhat negative. That in itself is proof big oil paid her to say that. Period. /sarcasm off

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’. Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.
Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
.
.
.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/scien...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

I'm sorry Tom but that's a "he said/she said" pissing contest centered on unsubstantiated allegations. It's pretty silly stuff.

So what do you think about the link I posted about the ACC skeptic who admited he was wrong?

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

 

[cancel2 2022]

I didn't answer your question cause I have not read your post.

The other question is why hasn't there been any warming since 1998?

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hillareous, just fucking hillareous. What's really very funny about this (besided your being a science denier and a passionate one at that) is that on the public policy side we are very close but your so blinded by ideology that you don't even see it. Hillareous, absolutely fucking hillareious!

So once again you are not even going to address ANY points, you are simply going to shout 'consensus' and 'science denier' and pretend that makes your case? You are a fucking idiot.

No, I'm not about to even enter a debate with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. It would be a complete waste of my time and no one is gonna change your mind!

Tell me Mutt... show me ONE instance where I am the one being intellectually dishonest. I can point to at least one on this thread where YOU HAVE BEEN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

You are a pathetic hack Mutt. Nothing more.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want but until you admit that their is a broad consensus with in the scientific community supporting ACC then you're arguments really fall into the realm of comedy. I'll just stick to reading it and having a good chuckle.

Only one sticking his head in the sand is you and your fear mongering dolts. They are not MY arguments you fucking half wit wanna be 'scientist'. I am pointing you directly to reports from CERN (which you ignore). They did the study. There are hundreds of articles on them, but because they don't mention your precious consensus in a good light, you ignore them... like a 'good scientist' does.

You are a fucking hack.

So tell us Mott.... these are all simple questions, even a pretend scientist like you should be able to answer them.....

1) Do you deny the outcome of the CERN data?
2) Do you deny the Earth has not significantly warmed since the late 1990's?
3) Do you deny the fact that despite the lack of warming CO2 levels have risen?
4) Do you deny the fact that the computer models used by the fear mongers have been obliterated by actual data?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm sorry Tom but that's a "he said/she said" pissing contest centered on unsubstantiated allegations. It's pretty silly stuff.

So what do you think about the link I posted about the ACC skeptic who admited he was wrong?

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Please tell me you do realize that your article is referencing the VERY same person that Tom's OP is discussing?

Please tell us you aren't that big of a fucking idiot that you didn't know that?

 

[cancel2 2022]

I'm sorry Tom but that's a "he said/she said" pissing contest centered on unsubstantiated allegations. It's pretty silly stuff.

So what do you think about the link I posted about the ACC skeptic who admited he was wrong?

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

You are not really paying attention, Richard Muller and Judith Curry are co-authors of the BEST study. I wonder if you know that it was part funded by the Koch brothers?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The other question is why hasn't there been any warming since 1998?

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/

Big Oil paid for the temperatures to remain steady since 1998.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You are not really paying attention, Richard Muller and Judith Curry are co-authors of the BEST study.

That is what happens when one simply spouts his spoon fed talking points rather than actually reading anything presented or addressing any questions.

Mott the Fool strikes again!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also Tom, due to his complete humiliation at this point, he will not be returning to the thread. Sorry for that.