Beautiful, just beautiful. I love this....
-
The facts are on my side. Your house of cards has fallen.
Saying that does not make it true. I've made clear that I think that warming is being exaggerated by the media and by some with more desire for funding than scruples. My point is entirely that this does not prove that there is no warming, and in fact, the facts make clear that there is. You're still name calling and boasting to try to cover up for a lack of evidence on your side, because I'm not a Gore worshipper, and the middle ground that I occupy is, unlike the extremes that Gore pedlles on one side, and you peddle on the other, beyond reproach.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I want to know his proof of a trend of cooling ( although I know what it is, I want him to say it, so he can be ripped to pieces )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I bet I can sum it up in two words... We can even make a Hangman puzzle out of it... A _ _ _ J _ _ _ _
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Only an idiot would mistake that for a 'trend' of cooling.
Why, because the "scientists" at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say so, and you believe them? You can't get any more stupid.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I don't even know what that is.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can't get any more stupid.
Yes, insulting me is a good move here. There are no facts to support your claims, even common sense is against you, so, an insult is really your best strategy to hide your ignorance.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I want to know his proof of a trend of cooling ( although I know what it is, I want him to say it, so he can be ripped to pieces )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
After talking to a someone who's actually spent time in a research lab I'm not terribly surprised by anything in the emails. Reminds me of the CS labs from school, no one used text book terms, they used what made sense in context or whatever they thought did. Sometimes this got a tad odd, or vulgar, or downright disturbing, but it generally got the point across. More often than not it made me question why I willingly worked with some of the people I did, but at least they weren't boring.
-
Please quote the relevant sections where they manipulated data, at length with at least the surrounding paragraph intact, I can explain just about any of it to you off the top of my head after talking with some real researchers rather than pundit idiots.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones -
Saying that does not make it true. I've made clear that I think that warming is being exaggerated by the media and by some with more desire for funding than scruples. My point is entirely that this does not prove that there is no warming, and in fact, the facts make clear that there is. You're still name calling and boasting to try to cover up for a lack of evidence on your side, because I'm not a Gore worshipper, and the middle ground that I occupy is, unlike the extremes that Gore pedlles on one side, and you peddle on the other, beyond reproach.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the facts make clear that there is
What facts? The facts that came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
-
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil JonesHere's the major issue. Assuming that this is genuine, and assuming that one lab falsified some data, how does that prove or disprove global warming as a whole ? Doesn't that mean you just throw out the bad data and look at the other data that is genuine ? Or are you less interested in science than in your own agenda ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the facts make clear that there is
What facts? The facts that came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world. Like I said, even if you're right and one body is discredited, that doesn't prove that every scientist who has ever said anything that disagrees with your imaginary worldview, is lying.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I don't even know what that is.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can't get any more stupid.
Yes, insulting me is a good move here. There are no facts to support your claims, even common sense is against you, so, an insult is really your best strategy to hide your ignorance.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
There are no facts to support your claims
Saying that does not make it true. You have my permission to Google climategate and get your dumbass educated.
-
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil JonesAhuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
-
Here's the major issue. Assuming that this is genuine, and assuming that one lab falsified some data, how does that prove or disprove global warming as a whole ? Doesn't that mean you just throw out the bad data and look at the other data that is genuine ? Or are you less interested in science than in your own agenda ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
how does that prove or disprove global warming as a whole ?
The whole pile of BS called global warming or climate change came from those scientists. They are the ones peddling that nonsense, and thank God that they have been exposed. The 30k scientists that have real peer reviewed solid science, who the IPCC fraudsters hate, are the ones you need to be looking into.
-
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
Distind wrote:
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph
Download the .zip file I linked to days ago. It has EVERYTHING.
-
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph, see, that's kind of my point, you haven't read over them, you're just spouting what you've seen elsewhere. If this really was falsified, we could just get the temps from the weather service and prove them wrong. But has anyone?
-
Distind wrote:
Ahuh. Where's the rest of the paragraph
Download the .zip file I linked to days ago. It has EVERYTHING.
-
And yet you can't quote the paragraph. On the other side of things, I'd rather not traffic in stolen materials.
Its public property paid for by taxpayers. If the science were sound, the data would be public.
-
For my own amusement: RETURN FIRE! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn[^] I know it's not a youtube video, but give it a shot. Rag that it is, most of this looks about right.
And from Wikipedia (Ironically from the "Climategate" article, which CSS keeps telling us to google)... _An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[44][12][45] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[46]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world. Like I said, even if you're right and one body is discredited, that doesn't prove that every scientist who has ever said anything that disagrees with your imaginary worldview, is lying.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The facts that come from all sorts of scientific bodies, around the world.
Only one is taken as truth and used to convince people that humans are bad and need to be controlled through a global carbon tax and trading system where al gore make mega profits off of his creation that ignorant fools like you soak up like a sponge. Its called IPCC.
-
And from Wikipedia (Ironically from the "Climategate" article, which CSS keeps telling us to google)... _An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[44][12][45] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[46]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
For my own amusement: RETURN FIRE! http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn[^] I know it's not a youtube video, but give it a shot. Rag that it is, most of this looks about right.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
like vaccinations for instance, or perhaps fluoride in water.
Yes, I assume it's because of your ignorant paranioa regarding some other areas of firm, basic science, that you love to find proof where none exists of conspiracy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.