Comments on: Lipstick on a Pig http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:47:37 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: B.D. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3123 B.D. Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:37:58 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3123 <p>That was very immature of me. Apologies.</p> That was very immature of me. Apologies.

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3122 McIntyre Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:16:41 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3122 <p>I'm Scientist and I am dumb.</p> I’m Scientist and I am dumb.

]]> By: JP http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3121 JP Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:35:38 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3121 <p>Thus far no comments concerning Mann's use of sediment proxies, or his inclusion of unpublished ice core data from Lonnie Thompson(Bona-Churchhill series). The Finns warned against using thier lake sediment as temp proxies because of the problems of cherry picking thier series. They said human interraction with the lake enviorment (farming, using the lakes as catchments, etc...).The Socotra Island speleothem proxy series, like Thompson's Bona-Churchill series is unpublished. Also, Mann failed to use Ababneh updated Graybill series from Sheeps Mountain (she failed to replicated Mann's results with the same proxies), and instead Mann used his orginal Bristlecone series.</p> <p>They question remains: Can Mann get a HS without using the Greybill Series, and only use non-MBH9X proxies?</p> Thus far no comments concerning Mann’s use of sediment proxies, or his inclusion of unpublished ice core data from Lonnie Thompson(Bona-Churchhill series). The Finns warned against using thier lake sediment as temp proxies because of the problems of cherry picking thier series. They said human interraction with the lake enviorment (farming, using the lakes as catchments, etc…).The Socotra Island speleothem proxy series, like Thompson’s Bona-Churchill series is unpublished. Also, Mann failed to use Ababneh updated Graybill series from Sheeps Mountain (she failed to replicated Mann’s results with the same proxies), and instead Mann used his orginal Bristlecone series.

They question remains: Can Mann get a HS without using the Greybill Series, and only use non-MBH9X proxies?

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3120 McIntyre Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:54:17 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3120 <p>Your parroting makes you look autistic. I have responded to all your questions. If you don't like the responses, that's your problem.</p> Your parroting makes you look autistic. I have responded to all your questions. If you don’t like the responses, that’s your problem.

]]> By: B.D. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3119 B.D. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:36:10 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3119 <p>Yes, Einstein. I realized it. You are really dumber than you think. You have not answered a single response to the crap you spew. Instead you just spew new crap. What kind of idiotic debate tactic is that, or do you consider that approach to be some kind of good debating technique?</p> Yes, Einstein. I realized it. You are really dumber than you think. You have not answered a single response to the crap you spew. Instead you just spew new crap. What kind of idiotic debate tactic is that, or do you consider that approach to be some kind of good debating technique?

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3118 McIntyre Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:21:41 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3118 <p>Oh dear. My <i>source</i>? Did you not realise I was taking the mickey out of you?</p> Oh dear. My source? Did you not realise I was taking the mickey out of you?

]]> By: B.D. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3117 B.D. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:04:46 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3117 <p>What is your source that the IPCC has been trying to cover up the true temperatures since the FAR?</p> What is your source that the IPCC has been trying to cover up the true temperatures since the FAR?

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3116 McIntyre Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:13:19 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3116 <p>Ah yes, the IPCC in 1990 accidentally published the 'true' 1000-1900 temperatures, and they've been trying to cover it up ever since. That must be it.</p> <p>What is your source for your claim of 'trillions of dollars in economic impact'?</p> Ah yes, the IPCC in 1990 accidentally published the ‘true’ 1000-1900 temperatures, and they’ve been trying to cover it up ever since. That must be it.

What is your source for your claim of ‘trillions of dollars in economic impact’?

]]> By: B.D. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3115 B.D. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:26:53 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3115 <p>And you seem to be struggling with the idea that the plots you are putting forth are anything other than crap. Even the IPCC first assessment acknowledged a much more variable climate from 1000 to 1900 than your boring (and debunked) hockey stick shows. There really can be no meaningful discussion about how CO2 is affecting temperatures that justifies trillions of dollars in economic impact until we have a realistic grasp on historical climate and your ilk seems to be struggling with that idea. The instrument record is not long enough and the proxy reconstructions are a joke. They can't be correlated to local temperatures, but they can be to global temperatures because supposedly temperature anomalies are correlated over large distances? Well then the thermometer in my backyard says the globe is cooling.</p> And you seem to be struggling with the idea that the plots you are putting forth are anything other than crap. Even the IPCC first assessment acknowledged a much more variable climate from 1000 to 1900 than your boring (and debunked) hockey stick shows. There really can be no meaningful discussion about how CO2 is affecting temperatures that justifies trillions of dollars in economic impact until we have a realistic grasp on historical climate and your ilk seems to be struggling with that idea. The instrument record is not long enough and the proxy reconstructions are a joke. They can’t be correlated to local temperatures, but they can be to global temperatures because supposedly temperature anomalies are correlated over large distances? Well then the thermometer in my backyard says the globe is cooling.

]]> By: McIntyre http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html/comment-page-1#comment-3114 McIntyre Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:45:48 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/09/lipstick-on-a-p.html #comment-3114 <p>You seem to be struggling with the idea that other things besides CO2 affect the climate. What do you expect, an exact correlation with temperature? Please, try not to debate idiotic points. The rather simple point that you can't seem to observe from the graphs is that CO2 has driven temperatures up over the last 200 years. Before 200 years ago, changes in CO2 concentration were not large enough to significantly alter the climate. Now what is your problem with this simple, basic science?</p> You seem to be struggling with the idea that other things besides CO2 affect the climate. What do you expect, an exact correlation with temperature? Please, try not to debate idiotic points. The rather simple point that you can’t seem to observe from the graphs is that CO2 has driven temperatures up over the last 200 years. Before 200 years ago, changes in CO2 concentration were not large enough to significantly alter the climate. Now what is your problem with this simple, basic science?

]]>