GlobalWarmingAlarmists.com

[Gropes]

Groupie:
This area is primarily for Climate Realists and you have provided evidence you are not one. You will fit right into Q's area and there you will find another AGW fanatic that can give you lessons in spreading the AGW fantasy. I would suggest the move to that area for the support it is evident you need or you can bring some of your other groupies to the site to make their comments.
I think it was nice of Moonbat to recommend his followers to come and entertain us here.

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't call baseless attacks on the hockey stick as climate realism. The hockey stick is just a reconstruction of past climate using historical proxies. And that is what it shows. The NAS study concludes it is largely correct.

[Co2sceptic]

Gropes, just to keep on track in what your saying...............

Your saying the world might be warming as The NAS study concludes it is largely correct, does it ever occur to you that they have no real science going, it's all could be and maybe and now it's largely correct.

Science should be used in a more modern way, the AGW way is stuck in the 1900's and they did not have computers then.

I have to agree with Mike this area is not for AGW support please use the AGW forum, and please take sides with Questioner, we had the forum open to all sometime back and it got very messy.

[Gropes]

Gropes, just to keep on track in what your saying...............

Your saying the world might be warming as The NAS study concludes it is largely correct, does it ever occur to you that they have no real science going, it's all could be and maybe and now it's largely correct.

Science should be used in a more modern way, the AGW way is stuck in the 1900's and they did not have computers then.

I have to agree with Mike this area is not for AGW support please use the AGW forum, and please take sides with Questioner, we had the forum open to all sometime back and it got very messy.

Surely the point of a thread is to have a bit of a to and fro exchange? Which is what we're doing? Am I a climate realist? Of course I am, so I am on right thread.

In response to your comment, 'they have no real science going'. Do you honestly believe that all the independent peer-reveiwed studies into historical temperatures are all wrong? That majority of climate scientists in the world could have got it so wrong? Or worse still, they are in on a scam?

Science is the best approximate description of the world through experimentation and observation. Most scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution is largely correct. And quantum theory is the best approximation of the world of the very small.

[Mike Davis]

Groupie:
You have shown that you are a Global warming Alarmist and there is a place on this web site for Global warming alarmists. I realize that you actually believe that you are a realist when it comes to your beliefs. This thread is proposing another web site devoted to those groups that promote global warming alarmism. Where our version of realists can discuss the people that you believe are right.
All the independent research groups you refer to are not as independent as you were programmed to believe and the evidence is in the Wegman report and in the UEA emails. You need to learn to live with the idea you have been lied to and you believed the lies.
Science is based on observation and experimentation however Climate fear is based on guesses and non verified models that have promoted as experiments but in reality are equal to really expensive Nintendo Games. That proves that your version of "Climate Science" is not real science at all! You my friend have found your self in an "Alice in Wonderland" situation by believing in what the false prophets have told you.

[Ravenna]

No it didn't, I read the NAS report and it largely agreed with MBH reconstruction (Mann et al) i.e. the 20th century most likely warmest.

Do you realize that the paper only covers the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.

Do you realize that the Minoan,Roman and Medieval Warm period were all WARMER than the 2Oth century?

Do you realize that his paper does not support the AGW hypothesis,it only claims that there is a rapid warming trend since around 1900.

Can't comment on Wegman because I believe it was more a polemic than a scientific study.

It showed that Dr. Mann did not apply proper statistical methods correctly.

And please remember, the Hockey Stick is just that. It's describes the historical temperature based on the information available. Maybe the denial industry should spend its $100 millions on research to come up with its own hockey stick, rather than spreading disinformation.

It is funny that a "peer reviewed" paper exposed the H.S. paper of serious statistical errors,that was subsequently backed up by the Schizophrenic NAS report and the Wegman Report and you are unhappy with that?



Recently Dr. Mann continues his delusion that his paper is robust and make false claims of support coming from Dr.Bloomfield:

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html#more

You really need to stop supporting bogus science papers.

[Ravenna]

When people who wear the label scientists,are caught fabricating data,censoring skeptics,block publication of contrary science presentations and break disclosure laws over data they create by manipulation.

They have abandoned the basic scientific method process for the purpose of advancing an agenda.

That to me describes the activities of anti science behavior.

It's a amazing how a few emails can be so taken out of context. With regard to the blocking publications, one of the most egregious accusations, has been totally misreported in the denialist world. This was to do with a flawed study by Soon and Baliunas, that made into the journal Climate Research. The editor of the journal censored scientists trying to comment on the flaws. This led to talks of a boycott of this journal. But somehow this story has been totally twisted on its head.

As with fabrication of data. This was to do with the 'hide the decline' email'. It's was a set of tree ring data between 1961 to 1990 that showed divergence. The WMO requested REAL temperature data for that period, so Phil Jones combined REAL temperature readings as requested. But the denialist world reported as scientists trying to hide the decline in global temperatures. But the two main misleading fallacies of this accusation is;

a, a set of tree ring data is not global temperatures,

b, they sought to hide the decline so much the divergence problem was discussed in almost half a dozen peer reveiwed studies and published in Chapter 6 page 40 of the IPCC AR4!

Rather than watching FOX news headlines, maybe people should actually read the emails? Just a thought...

Dr. Jones himself admits that what he wrote were bad.

It is obvious that you have not been reading them because those e-mails actually supported what numerous skeptics complained about for years.Not only that the alarmists are very candid in what they are talking about and you can not deny it since it is quite revealing.

Here is a nice link that leads to ALL of the e-mails in their categories:

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

Here are a collection of links here at this link:

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/f ... d-484.html

[Mike Davis]

Ravenna:
Thank you for providing that background information and quotes from the parties involved.

[Gropes]

No it didn't, I read the NAS report and it largely agreed with MBH reconstruction (Mann et al) i.e. the 20th century most likely warmest.

Do you realize that the paper only covers the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.

Do you realize that the Minoan,Roman and Medieval Warm period were all WARMER than the 2Oth century?

Do you realize that his paper does not support the AGW hypothesis,it only claims that there is a rapid warming trend since around 1900.

Can't comment on Wegman because I believe it was more a polemic than a scientific study.

It showed that Dr. Mann did not apply proper statistical methods correctly.

And please remember, the Hockey Stick is just that. It's describes the historical temperature based on the information available. Maybe the denial industry should spend its $100 millions on research to come up with its own hockey stick, rather than spreading disinformation.

It is funny that a "peer reviewed" paper exposed the H.S. paper of serious statistical errors,that was subsequently backed up by the Schizophrenic NAS report and the Wegman Report and you are unhappy with that?



Recently Dr. Mann continues his delusion that his paper is robust and make false claims of support coming from Dr.Bloomfield:

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html#more

You really need to stop supporting bogus science papers.

Yes I'm sure, I've been told many times the MWP was warmer than today because Vikings called Greenland 'green'. But in that cause I wonder why they called Iceland 'ice' even though its supposed to be warmer there? Anyway, it's good because history books and swords and sandals movies really give you an accurate log of past climate.

As if a blogspot is going to convince anyone that the hockey stick is phoney. Get real people. The hockey stick has been investigated and independently assessed. The NAS report largely agrees with it, i.e. the 20th Century most likely warmest.

[Mike Davis]

Groupie:
You are the one out of sync with reality. The independent papers that support the Hockey Stick use the same proxies and methods. Those are not independent as was shown by Wegman in his report to congress. Under oath The head of the NAS panel agreed that Mann"s Hockey paper had value equal to zero. The statistician on the NAS panel agreed with the finding of McIntyre and McKitrick that the paper used bad proxies and statistical methods. It was Barton who made the statement: Bad proxies plus bad methods equals good results is bad science.
You ignored the statements by the people from the NAS panel when they testified under oath before congress and ignorantly still claim the opposite of the evidence provided. You need to join Q in the fantasy area of this site.

[Gropes]

Groupie:
You are the one out of sync with reality. The independent papers that support the Hockey Stick use the same proxies and methods. Those are not independent as was shown by Wegman in his report to congress. Under oath The head of the NAS panel agreed that Mann"s Hockey paper had value equal to zero. The statistician on the NAS panel agreed with the finding of McIntyre and McKitrick that the paper used bad proxies and statistical methods. It was Barton who made the statement: Bad proxies plus bad methods equals good results is bad science.
You ignored the statements by the people from the NAS panel when they testified under oath before congress and ignorantly still claim the opposite of the evidence provided. You need to join Q in the fantasy area of this site.

Yes I'm sure, or this some sort of denialist para-phasing? Like the emails. I've read the report, the conclusions are black and white. The late 20th century most likely warmest. Not the 15th century as claimed by McIntyre et al.