Comments on: New Climate Video – RCRC Climate Debate

By: 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:57:21 +0000

@araucan

Seen this?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:33:14 +0000

“if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.”

They are the worst papers I have ever read. IMO they are deliberately deceptive, based on bad data and designed to make room for the politicians to legislate. They have no basis in science. I didn’t have a good source either so I debunked them it myself.

Here are a couple of links. They are a little math heavy but I tried to reduce it so that interested people can figure it out.

This first one is very important if you’re truly interested. I plotted the actual data and the fake data Mann pasted on the end of 90% of his proxies. This got some play but was really missed by most skeptics.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/the-all-important-blade-of-the-stick-uses-less-than-5-of-the-data/

How the bad math makes a hockey stick.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/

How the bad math distorts the signal in the hockey stick and how non-linearity affects the result.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/straightening-the-hockey-stick-blade/

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:08:48 +0000

Will,
I just saw your note to me. Yes, I do read everything I can on this issue.
The interesting thing now is that as AGW implodes, its promoters are engaging in self-selection in terms of what is published. Hansen & pals are actively suppressing papers based on their agreement with the Hansen apocalypse. IOW the peer reviewed system is dysfunctional. Ridiculous papers about kidney stones or pythons living in Kansas are getting published, while papers showing the reality of igonored negative feedback processes are suppressed. Papers regularly use, Jennifer's recent posts show, recycled GIGO data.
NASA has admitted that GISS data is, at the least, suspect and vulnerable to a great deal of subjective 'interprolation'. But that is ignored by our believers. The data showing that freeze and thaw dates are trendless over about 30 years are ignored by the believers. Data showing that CO2 is but one forcing of many anthro-forcings is ignored. The huge problem of corrupt ground stations, so well documented, is ignored by the AGW community.
The AGW community still persists in falselly claiming that storm trends are changing.
I think the challenge is not for skpetics to to continue re-read AGW propagnada. I think the chanllenge is for the AGW community to finally stop hiding behind consensus and arguments from authority and to engage the data honestly.

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:59:37 +0000

Rob,
It is not that Jennifer,and so many other AGW believers have closed minds. It is that they are intellectual cowards.
From san quentin's inability to even call us for what we are- skeptics- to Jennifer's inability to answer simple questions to Hansen's continued rewrite of historical temperatures, AGW is populated with people who beleive, or sell, lies.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:24:54 +0000

Jennifer,

My mistake, I thought the name came above the comment not below, you have a totally closed mind, there is NO hope for you.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:07:18 +0000

Hi, Just wanted to congratulate you on such clear, considered critique. This should be the basis for study in all schools and colleges, from this balanced unbiased lecture students can go forward and find the truth behind the myth, if it is a myth. Your critique should be shown side by side with Gores film, brilliant.

Jennifer, I agree with all you have to say, just look at historical events, geological events and forget computer models.

By: san quintin

san quintin — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:52:43 +0000

Lovely to see all the AGW deners here again. The usual request: why don’t you publish this stuff in the scientific literature? Because you and I know it’s rubbish? Actually, none of this really matters because the people who make the decisions (politicians, business leaders etc) are all convinced that AGW is happening. All the deniers are just an increasingly irrelevant sideshow with as much political clout as flat-earhers.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:21:29 +0000

Will, do you think it's normal behaviour to describe the manner in which you desire your questions to be answered? You really are an absurdly arrogant and deeply weird character. Refer to what I said here

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:40:18 +0000

josh,
As AGW continues to lose credibility, we will be amazed at the number of its believers and promoters will find their way to be silent.
Just today, there is this regarding the unreliability of SAT data provided by GISS:
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/10/comments-on-the-nasa-giss-website-qa-giss-surface-temperature-analysis-the-elusive-absolute-surface-air-temperature-sat/
And those are problems with current data.
Yet Mann still claims his bs is credible going back centuries?
The AGW community has not established that the climate has changed in any way outside of the margin of error.
The believers who defend it are reduced to pouting silences and attempts to censor the skeptics.
But as Galileo pointed out, “they move”, no matter the authoritarian claim to the contrary.

By: josh

josh — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:56:02 +0000

Jenny, I guess Will has offended you as well? Is this why you don’t answer his questions either?