at 7:06 Spencer says "I think when we made that correction, if I'm remembering correctly, I think we went from a cooling trend to a slight warming trend."
"If I'm remembering correctly, I think..." ???? Seems like a strange thing to lose your memory on. Your science gets spanked and you can't remember the details.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
Im a "deiner" but this video was good. So if I understand correctly the world has not been cooling for the last 13 years but the scientist altered the graphs from the data collected from tree rings?
@testingsthlm the most reliable source of temp readings is thermometers... before thermometers you have to use other data from ice cores, tree rings, etc. Tree ring data for the time frame in which we have had thermometers tracks closely with the thermometer data except in the last few decades (probably due to other environmental factors) this doesn't mean it wasn't warmer--we still have the thermometer data--it just means that the divergence in tree rings must be accounted for. That's it.
The so-called "climategate" emails were the deniers smoking gun that proved without doubt that all scientists are taking part in a major left-wing-green-environmental-tree-hugging conspiracy?
@SuperRmck It's a bit hard to sound impartial when all the evidence and the scientific consensus is on one side, and the other side only has lies, propoganda and Glenn Beck. How impartial can you be? Should we also be impartial about the debate of faeries in the garden?
@greenman3610 Indeed, reality counts. It's tearing those models a new orifice. We've had no warming for the last 12 years. The projected tropospheric greenhouse hotspot is absent. Hurricane activity is neither more frequent nor more intense. Reality trumps the models, and the models have failed.
@BeondaPale I will, next time she/he gets the forecast wrong. In fact, we here in Orlando still remember hurricane Charlie-that the models projected to be heading to a landfall north of Tampa only 6 hours before hitting here (landfall was Port Charlotte, near Ft. Myers). Don't feed me that baloney about model accuracy.
@ChaseKittens Evidence? Computer models aren't evidence. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific (like AGW). A consensus about anything relating to science renders it unscientific. If these scientists misrepresented the case, as well as attempted to silence their opposition, then it makes their false "consensus" a fraud. Especially in the face of countering evidence.
The voice in the video gives that fake calm and reasonable tone. "Hi I'm reasonable. I'm not foolish. These are the facts because I showed a chart and sourced NASA. Anyone who doubts man-made climate change is a NAZI. The govt. loves you." Lol!
These GW cult members will say anything. Mojib Latif 1 of the authors of the IPCC says that temperatures may cool for the next 20 yrs, but that doesn't mean there isn't CO2 driven GW. What's the solution? More taxes of course. They spend billions on wars, but for GW we need to pay the govt. more money. These greenman videos are retarded & insulting to anyone who has a mind of their own. He references a bunch of corrupt special interest funded organizations as the be all end all of proof.
@greenman3610 Hardly a theory. It's an obvious fact that several scientists tried to maintain a position by misconduct. Whereas the conspiracy theory your side puts forth fails epicly.
@Beondapale It's actually YOU and Herr Grunmann who look ridiculous. I cite one example that shows definite misconduct on the part of an AGW-supporting scientist, and it is but 1 example, which proves the "investigations" to be incompetently done, and you try to dismiss it and he tries to avoid the issue. THAT is what looks ridiculous.
@greenman3610 Trying to blow off FACTS as political "talking points" demonstrates only that you have no defense for the hypocrisy your scientific, journalistic, and political allies engage in. This is especially egregious in the case of the IPCC report. It is purported to make the alarmist case based on real science, which is proven a LIE. It proves the science behind your position weak, and you have no defense?
@smartalek65 " It proves the science behind your position weak"
You making a mountain out of a molehill doesn't overturn the scientific consensus on man's contributions to global warming. Even if these scientists were caught straight-up lying, that wouldn't overturn it either. Evidence is evidence. You just have to not be a wingnut to see it.
CONT'D Then there's the tacit acceptance of the supposed gold standard of advocates and alarmists, the IPCC. We're told that the alarmist assessment reports are based solely on peer-reviewed science; only to discover that the alarms are referenced to "research" by advocacy groups like greenpeace and world wildlife fund. And there's not a peep heard from you, Herr Grunmann, or your fellows in even shocked astonishment at such hypocrisy.
@greenman3610 Then, let's bring into direct light the hypocrisy this "conspiracy" rant demonstrates. If anyone accepts one thin dime from any source even remotely tied to a fossil fuel company, they're entirely bought off and nothing they say can be true; yet there's no credibility problem with climate scientists who are paid 6 figures by and sit on an environmental advocacy group's board of directors CONT'D
@greenman3610 Hahahaha! Is that your best answer? When your scientist friends are caught red-handed in their misdeeds, the investigations you tout as definitive proof of the lack thereof are proven incompetent or worse, the best answer you have is, "oh, it's a conspiracy???" It's little wonder the public has lost interest in fixing this alleged 'problem.'
CONT'D Point is, it's hard to take an investigation as a serious and honest inquiry when it says 'no evidence of scientific misconduct' and such a blatant abuse of a submitted paper by a referee sits so obviously open in the emails. Those "investigations" can't be anything but whitewashes under such conditions.
@BeondaPale Gee, I dunno. Maybe if you looked up Kieth Briffa's email to Ed Cook on Dec. 17, 2001, you might see the lack of real honesty in those "investigations." Briffa was a peer-reviewer of a paper Cook and Jan Esper submitted to SCIENCE. He's telling Cook to rephrase sections of that paper. Mind you, dinky, revisions are properly sent to the editor.
@Maxdwolf Honestly, dude, if you only go by 1 email that somebody else told you the contents of, no offense but you'll come off looking like an easily manipulated fool. Some of the emails are benign in nature, but others reveal things not discussed by any MSM outlet-not even FoxNews, purported by the left to be the most vocal of it's opposition.
@Maxdwolf An email of January 21, 2005, is where Dr Wigley talks of getting Saiers "ousted." Within the exchange, there's a copy of a reply to Wigley's complaint to GRL editor-in-chief Steve Mackwell about concerns of the McIntyre & McKitrick paper in GRL that triggered Mann & co.'s anger. But really, you should look through those emails yourself. There's MUCH more than our host lets on here.
@greenman3610 & Beyondapale Yes, we do know why. Here, it's the topic of this vid. On other comment sections from our host, science IS discussed, and we (whom you call by pejoratives) are absolutely owning your side.
@greenman3610 "COMPREHENSIVE?" HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's rich! If you believe that, I've got a bridge in New York City named after one of the burroughs to sell...
I have to agree with smartalek65. You neglected to mention a ton of scandalous information and merely presented a few points where we have to take them at their word when they try to explain that it's taken out of context.
CONT'D That was the standard you set, and now attempt to defend Wigley's actions with the unimportant and unprovable notion that the attempt failed. Any impartial investigation would have found this tampering unacceptable, and this defense ridiculous. Mann's actual defense was no better.
Another one is of your own doing. During our discussion of the Climate Research flap, you used 2 defenses: the non-issue paper, and that Mann/Jones didn't act on their "options." Nevermind, apparently, that Jones emailed that he'd had words with Hans Von Storch about the offending editor. Here, we have Wigley ACTING ON that that threat to oust a GRL editor.CONT'D
@greenman3610 I'm not the only one not fooled. A UK prosecutor failed to press charges due to a thing called a statute of limitations. Denying an FOIA request without true cause is a crime. That's just one problem with your smokescreen.
@greenman3610 How many investigations? 1 HONEST one, not a series of whitewashes that accepts the lamest of answers as truth, refuses to seat skeptics on the panels, and blatantly fails to seriously probe allegations-then brazenly denies the obvious truth.
Those emails and docs in the so-called climategate batch revealed a LOT more than just simple things you try (rather poorly) to defend here. Concerted efforts to deny FOIA requests, efforts to tamper with publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals, efforts to prevent any skeptical views from being discussed at IPCC, even the odd way one of them thought the death of a skeptic was "cheering news." Give us a break from trying to pretend reality isn't real, Herr grunmann.
well, there have been 6 official investigations, not to mention numerous journalistic inquiries, which have turned up only a little towel snapping among the boys.
Yet you insist on repeating your Glenn Beck talking points.
How many investigations would it take to satisfy you?
@greenman3610 As for when you accuse skeptics of accepting pay-offs from oil companies, perhaps someone should ask you about the IPCC's accepting research from the likes of greenpeace and other enviro-nut organizations as "scientific" proof that a catastrophe is imminent. Why aren't you acknowledging the wrong in that? Or that alarmists like Michael Oppenheimer sitting on the board, and PAID for it, of another such org?
@greenman3610 Got ADD much? We're discussing the unethical efforts against a GRL editor, and you want to make the blatantly false accusation that I'm "defending" a paper in ANOTHER JOURNAL that I've never defended. Try again, discuss the issue at hand, though. Perhaps you should obey that maxim you quoted from Franklin earlier.
@smartalek65 Well, Herr grunmann? What have you to say? Wigley and Mann talked of efforts to intimidate a GRL editor for no more than "being in the skeptics' camp," AND CARRIED IT OUT. This is unacceptable, even by your own stated standards. Whether Saiers left because of it or not doesn't matter, that the effort was made DOES. This is a clear case of attempting to suppress scientific research from the journals by intimidation.
@greenman3610 It's YOU who makes stuff up. You're using a classic strawman argument. Re-read my last post. In those emails, Wigley and Mann talk of AND CARRY OUT an effort to intimidate by trying to "oust" a GRL editor. Whether or not it succeeded DOES NOT MATTER FOR OUR PURPOSES. That they tried an unethical tactic DOES. The message is loud and clear-doubt what we say, and we'll try to oust whoever does, so don't try to publish anything we don't like.
@smartalek65 What was unethical? I didn't see anything unethical in the e-mail I saw. Given the publishing of trashy papers Mann suggested that serious climatologists should consider not providing papers for said publication. I don't see a problem there.
@Maxdwolf You might try reading all the exchanges concerning the Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters efforts to rid the journals of editors found to be "troublesome" or "in the skeptics' camp." You're reading only one email, try the ones where it's suggested that the editor be ousted (Mann in Climate Research, Wigley in GRL flap). Obviously, it's more than "not submitting papers." It's an active attempt to tamper with journals' processes.
@smartalek65 Given your tendency to misrepresent, I'm not about to go searching through thousands of e-mails to satisfy your claim, particularly since others have already gone there and found nothing.. Give the date of the e-mail or the url to which you are referring.
@greenman3610 Putting the point bluntly, sir, you're defending (giving tacit approval to) an effort to, at the very least, intimidate the editorial staff of a respected refereed journal for having the daring to consider and publish a paper that caused certain scientists to think him-gasp! Oh the horror-a skeptic. This is a punch in the nose to scientific inquiry, the very heart of science.
putting it bluntly - Soon's paper stunk the joint up so bad that half the staff bailed in disgust. You're still defending Soon, that ship sailed 7 years ago. His reputation sank when he took oil company money to write one of the worst paper's published in decades.
@greenman3610 Actually, the flap I mentioned goes much deeper than whether or not Wigley got him fired or not. The Climate Research flap, which we were discussing before, I pointed out the Mann/Jones discussing ways to rid a journal of an editor for disagreeing with their views. You defended your pal by saying they didn't act on their words. This time, somebody DID.
@pointyhead1 I'm disappointed our host has seemingly lost his will to defend his friends and his argument. Note his last post-LAME! I'm disappointed because there's a lot more he didn't cover in these 2 vids, like the firing of Prof. James Saiers at GRL. More attempted intimidatiom by the friendly crew...
"then another professor (and blogger) asked Saiers about the Wigley e-mail, Saiers responded: "I stepped down as GRL editor at the end of my three-year term. ... My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked."
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Global warming by CO2 is now old news as it has already been proven a hoax. You donot have to be a scientist to know this. If the globe is warming, it would be prudent to fund both man made and natural causes equally to get the correct answer. But in the US alone over 70 billion has been spent to study man made and 0 to fund natural causes. Even a moron can figure out what the result will be. The earth is always cooling or warming over periods of time. DUHH!
Nature mag has disregarded it's own requirements in order to accommodate the Climate Gang's illicit hiding of the data method and code used to obtain results, which makes many of their papers consist of non evidence.
@beondapale Is that the best you and greenman can do? LOL! Anybody wonder what it means when our host can't answer when called on his tactics and some random member posts the lamest of ad hominems as the best can be done?
CONT'D For instance, notice greenman3610 never cites the IPCC.That's wise, as the IPCC has been beleaguered by a number of revealing scandals over the last year. Not the least of which is the recent Inter-Academies Council's rebuke of the IPCC for violating it's own stated rules and procedures regarding materials that could be cited for it's 4th assessment report. This causes severe credibility issues.
3-He constantly and proudly appeals to authorities to prove he's right. While it's a good initial PR move, it indicates poor command of the facts. It's also a double-edged sword: if these authorities are scandalized even slightly, it causes the audience to disbelieve what the person citing them says.
2-To most environmentalists, the end justifies the means. Notice that Mr. Sinclair never admits when he's wrong when he's unequivocally called on his misrepresentations. So what? He's making a point for a good cause. This his appearent attitude, the end justifies the means. But that's the same attitude and excuse used by tyrranical regimes throughout history.
For those still reading along, I'll point out the biggest of mistakes Herr Sinclair (greenman3610) makes. He's fallen into the same propoganda traps that most environmentalists fall. 1-Take all your info from those who agree with you. This would explain why I seem to get the better of him in these discussions: because I know both sides of this debate.
CONT'D Now, understand it's not my intent to be mean-spirited to you, greenman, nor is it to be crass. But it's been high time that someone show you the errors in your belief in AGW, and living up to my handle seems the only way to make you understand that your terminology is offensive and dehumanizing. You would do well, if you seek honesty and truth, to drop such pejoratives as "denier."
@greenman3610 Those were just what falsehoods and distortions you've posted on THIS thread. Would you prefer I point out all the others from your other threads? Like when you falsely accused ttowntom of "cherrypicking" data from a legitimate paper in the literature, only to be entirely unable to point out where the paper contradicted anything tom quoted. You failed to admit your mistake and apologize-thus compounding them.
CONT'D 3) You imply that we're discussing this issue as a legal problem-which will come later when we get to FOIA requests. Truth: I made it clear in a previous post that what Mann/Jones were seriously discussing as a real option was a breach of scientific ethics, not law.
CONT'D Falsehood 2) You say that I stipulated that Mann/Jones didn't act on their discussed options. Truth: I remarked that they deny having done so, which proves nothing either way. The troubling and problematic issue is that they even discussed it as a serious option at all.
@greenman3610 Perhaps we should review your falsehoods of the last few days. 1) You said I stand on the side of quacks whe published a flawed literary study. Truth: Not even once have I defended this paper. It's not even the topic of discussion here. The leaked emails didn't reveal the Soon/Baliunas paper's flaws, they revealed Mann/Jones' serious discussion of options that should be condemned by any serious scientist. Whether or not they acted hardly matters for our purpose here.
@greenman3610 What's clear is that you live in an alternate reality where threats, intimidation, personal smears (like that against David Legates), censorship (like what happened to Bjorn Lomborg), and such tactics are legitimate options for scientists. That, friend, is most clear, due to the fact that you refuse to disavow such acts. Whereas I have the basic honesty to acknowledge a flawed paper, you dishonestly make it the justification for discussion of dispicable acts.
@greenman3610 Keep trying to twist my words, makes you look more like the jackwagon my drill instructor would have called you. Both Mann & Jones deny carrying out their threats-doesn't prove whether they did or not. You still avoid the point and I won't quit hammering you on it: threats and intimidation towards editors of a journal should NOT EVEN BE AN OPTION. You evidently think it's acceptable. Got it.
I think it is clear that you live in a dream world.
No one threatened anyone. The offending article was published, much to the mortification of all involved. It was an embarrassment to science, but obviously a point of pride for you.
Clearly this is a big deal to you, but private conversations and wistful thinking do not constitute actions under any conceiveable legal doctrine.
Post away my friend. If you can't keep it rational, at least keep it clean.
@greenman3610 Call it what you want, but that's NOT what is Mann & Jones are being blasted for. They didn't express any notion that they even realized there was any "questionable" funding. You think threats against and intimidation of a journal's staff should be an option. Got it. Science ethics doesn't agree.
@greenman3610 WRONG! The issue raised isn't whether a paper was published with numerous flaws. The issue raised by the leaked emails (THE subject of your vid)was the reaction to it. To even suggest intimidation or other such action against the editors of a scientific journal is NEVER acceptable, no matter the perceived provocation.
@greenman3610 Avoid the real issue much? It's not about Von Storch's resignation. It's about these 2 contemplating intimidating the editor of a scientific journal. For scientists, this should be unthinkable. It's little wonder you need those pats on the head from Mann and his co-conspirators (guilty of much more than we're talking about now); you're getting owned on your own thread.
CONT'D What you say here first is another example of distorting facts. What I exactly said was that both scientists denied acting (natch, if they had and admitted to it, that would make clearing them awkward for the whitewashes to come) and Von Storch denied reacting to pressure when he resigned. This only means that Von Storch was ignorant of or ignored any such actions.Proves nothinp either way.
@greenman3610 You excel at twisting what others say. We speaking on the climategate emails generally and you want to make it about the paper, which was NEVER under discussion. The fact is, that's exactly what Mann & Jones were discussing. For scientists to even THINK of doing such things is reprehensible, to say the least. As I said before, there are appropriate outlets for a scientist to express outrage if he/she feels the paper is flawed.
@greenman3610 PROVE IT you can't just make crap up and say its true! What time period last ohh 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years 5000 years? What. Yes NOAA is a GOVERNMENT agency, whom I applied to work for once, and has an agenda for grants.
@greenman3610 And your on the side who must maintain it's exalted position by intimidation, threats, smears, deceipt, censorship, and fearmongering. I hope you need not be reminded of the misdeeds done in the name of Global Warming alarmism.
You've just agreed that no intimidation, threat, smear or censorship took place in the instance you mentioned.
What strange delusions are you raving about now?
I think it is perfectly appropriate for scientists like Mann, Jones, and Von Storch, to be outraged by transparent Exxon funded disinformation being given approval by a journal that claims credibility. This should be the self policing component of the peer review system, which broke down in this case.
Let's review for our cone-hat wearer, greenman. Some journal publishes a literature review that a couple scientists don't like. It's got serious flaws, and instead of doing the right thing and pointing out these flaws; these scientists talk about using intimidation tactics like pressuring the publisher to fire the editor. Somehow, according to greenman, the world should be ok with this.
CONT'D Jones and Mann deny carrying out the threats,and Von Storch says no pressure caused his resignation. However, the very idea shouldn't have been even considered, as in science this is a "hanging offense." The very idea of attempting to intimidate an editor of a scientific journal for publishing a submitted study because it's contrary to his/her/their opinion smacks of tampering. Even if it's scientifically questionable-in which case, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
@greenman3610 As is becoming the norm with you, you didn't adress the point. The point is: that Jones and Mann even DISCUSSED pressuring the publication's board to act against it's editor and trying to denigrate the journal itself, rather than the time-honored method of submitting a formal reply to the journal, is troubling to say the least. That's only the beginning of the problems this scandal brings to AGW.
@greenman3610 If you chose your words more carefully, you might have fewer such problems. You might answer the REAL problems climategate poses to your side of the argument. Like Mann and Jones' threats and gloating around the ouster of Von Storch at Climate Research. Even the thought of 2 prominent scientists misbehaving like this is troubling.
You'll see that von Storch resigned the position because he was so disgusted with the publication of the trash Soon and Balliunas paper -- 4 other members of the editorial board went with him, and the publisher had to issue an apology.
@greenman3610 The first mischaracterization made on this vid is basic: the emails and documents weren't "hacked," that would be next to impossible even for an expert and determined hacker. They were, in all probability, published by an insider. Leaked by a whistleblower is how this is usually termed. Hacking is completely illegal, whereas whistleblowing is protected by law.
@greenman3610 why it doesn't change the facts your not addressing.... its all fear mongering BS. its not warming, while he have snowfalls in the deserts, and the amazon almost freezes...
Free energy has been here all along ,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
the problem is when you tweek data, to hava "the real" temperatures.. what science is this when you tweek it to some expected result. the real science SHOULD know, why didn't tree data colerate to their theory. these email fragments show the frustration of not corresponding data. of course they wouldn't for a second think it's not getting warmer so it's strawman argument to say email were meant to prove anything more than they discard anything not proving warming. that is not science.
News Today from the COAPS Hurricane Research Center: Global hurricane activity at the lowest point in 33 years; Pacific activity lowest in recorded history.
Remember when GW fanatics told us warming would lead to more, stronger, hurricanes? Oops again!
F you ya ecofascist doesn't matter if its real you will be taxed. I ride a bicycle so kiss my ass ya ecoterrorist suv driving yuppies. Keep giving your money to the chinese ya dopey fux. Who is going to clean the island of spring water bottles in the pacific Poland spring or your taxes. Answer that one smarty pants, BP oil spill is not my fault so get you and your rich friends to throw a dinner, you going to show how GMO food is good for us too. Man bear pig lover. Did they cut the funding?
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
@greenman3610, are you genetically incapable of telling the truth? 2010 was the second hottest summer since the 1880s (2003 was the hottest). That's a far cry from the coldest -- or the hottest -- in 1000 years.
Russian Meteorological Center: “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat.”
11000 dead in Moscow.
I guess if you can claim gifts of prophecy about the winter, I can cite actual official sources.
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
lol, the climate hasn't been cooling? You should look at the temperature over millions of years. It's been cold 90% of that time. This warm period isn't even the highest compared to the past.
Sure, just look at the pass 1000 years and it's easy to be ignorant. That's where the hockey stick figure comes from.
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
We have two issues here: 1) is "climate change" man-made? 2) if so, should the broke and broken governments that continually prove to be incompetent provide the solution? These are two separate questions; but in this debate they are treated as one. This is akin to concluding that government is the solution to the drug problem ("war on drugs"). So long as science and politics remain fused in this argument, debate over the science will be nothing but background noise
NY Times (7/1/10): “An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. MANN, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
“An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.”
Your way of thinking is not the only one and claiming that you alone or your group speaks for science sounds more like dogma than science.
If there are other proxies they must stand alone so as not to be contaminated with an erroneous proxy which would by referral undermine there very validity.
When I first heard about climate gate I was confused becuase the last several winters were abnormally warm. It was spring in January at one point in the North East. I was thinking if Global Warming is supposed to be a hoax then what's causing the warm weather in winter.
Why does everyone hate on the scientific community? Anything anyone publishes can be proved or disproved by any other people. If this really were a fraud, there would be plenty of scientists to call it out. And if people really do want to have a valid opinion they should educate themselves on the subject and conduct their own experiments.
@greenman3610 I am not talking about any investigation. Watch this video fully. He basically says data has been fudged and that is ok. In science you have several independent verification of the same phenomenon, that all agree. Here the tree ring data disagrees and they just 'phase it out'. Watch this video
@greenman3610 Oh yes, you did make the video. YouTube has changed its color coding. In your video you admitted that data was fudged and then you tried to casually dismiss it. And now argument from authority. To be honest, I was finding many of your videos plausible if not convincing. So I was eagerly awaiting on what you had to say on 'the trick'. And you admitted that it was in fact a trick. There is nothing more to say about that.
@82abhilash I'd respond to your comment but I can't find any logic in it. Nor can I find any logic in any of your other posts. Could you take maybe one more smart pill then write some more? Maybe that way we could make heads or tails of what you write.
Damn! Sometimes deniers are just so goofy...or delusional...or both. I can't wait for his response.
@sTevefor3 You must not know much about logic.He actually said in this video that some of the data, particularly the tree ring data temperatures did not match data from other sources where before it did. Apparently no one knows why, but the brilliant scientists decided to rub off the disagreeing data. That is plain and simple fudging aka fraud and he agrees that it has been done and tries not to make a big deal about it. You think that is logical? Fudging data.
@82abhilash Wrong, and non-sequitur to boot. Briffa et al agreed that the tree ring data diverged from the measured temp data. There was no fraud. Your interpretation of the explanation is lacking in an honest assessment of the facts, a common denier weakness. That's why deniers get laughed at; you make strawman arguments, then cry like Glenn Beck when someone calls B.S. on you.
@sTevefor3 They agreed that the tree ring data diverged and very casually covered it up, the trick. Because they could not explain why it diverged. That is fraud. Imagine if Kepler had done that
@82abhilash Gee, if they "very casually covered it up" then why do we even know about the tree ring data? Nope, no fraud here, just conspiracy theorists crazy with silly attempts to find something that just isn't there. You really should do some more homework on this. All of your posts on this video have been debunked by amateurs like me. Which denier fallacy are you going to bring up next? 1998? CO2 lag? MWP? Cosmic rays? Sea ice? Already debunked, and more...yer such a goof...
Gee, if they "very casually covered it up" then why do we even know about the tree ring data?
Stolen emails. That is how. Don't try to bullshit me. I did not speak about Sea ice or cosmic rays or anything like that. When you have a weak position, try to cover for it with mockery helps.
@82abhilash You are retarded. You either didn't watch the video or didn't understand it. The tree ring data diverges because tree growth doesn't just rely on warmth but other factors. If those other factors slow growth they will no longer track the temp data. It is a valid reason for leaving it out and the graph doesn't even require the addition of tree ring data to show warming.
@kcdl Really? Then point out to me the time segment, where it says so.
I saw the video AGAIN because of you. The part I talk about is from 4:50 to 5:58 He does not give the explanation you did (WITHOUT SITING SOURCES). But at around 5:10 he does say 'NO ONE KNOWS WHY'. A little later he admits they just rubbed off inconvenient data at around 5:30
@82abhilash It is common sense that tree growth depends on more than temperature (I have studies biology for many years, but a primary school student could tell you that too). The depend on light level, nutrient availability, soil pH, water levels and may be negatively affected by a number of other factors.I could site Campbell's biology from McGraw Hill but if you have half a brain you'd know I'm right anyway. He says no one knows why but it is irrelevant to the discussion because (continued)
@82abhilash there were many other line of evidence that did track the temp accurately. It was only added as supporting evidence however other factors came in that made them poor indicators after a certain period. It would be idiot to assume that because the tree ring growth stop tracking the temp that all the other multiple lines of evidence must be indicating the wrong temp. Trees are not thermometer and only track temp if all their other requirements are met. It would be nice to know (cont)
@82abhilash why the stopped tracking the data but not germaine to the arguement. The fact the stop tracking the data might be a bad environment indicator in itself. Where did I get all this from, it is call thinking it through. No if you can pose a counter arguement as to why tree ring data should be put ahead of thermometers and other data to indicate temperature go ahead. I will be happy to shoot down whatever illogical crap you come up with.
This has been flagged as spam show
The most astonishing series on youtube
Search For
"THE GREAT DISASTERS"
eliasmouawad 1 month ago
at 7:06 Spencer says "I think when we made that correction, if I'm remembering correctly, I think we went from a cooling trend to a slight warming trend."
"If I'm remembering correctly, I think..." ???? Seems like a strange thing to lose your memory on. Your science gets spanked and you can't remember the details.
fusedchromosome 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
I found a facebook hack that works,MUST SEE!!!
watch?v=iYmaclXuNjg
zexipwnz 5 months ago
Haha - Fox News...
TheChristChris 7 months ago
Klymit deenyers kant reed
R4t10n4L 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part A:
Denial: oi52.tinypic.
com/35d2nie.jpg
Oceans: oi53.tinypic.
com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi52.tinypic.
com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago in playlist Climate Change Debate (there really isnt one)
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/16ifevq.jpg
Authority: oi54.tinypic.
com/dny4nt.jpg
Prophecy: oi54.tinypic.
com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/i56fsg.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago in playlist Climate Change Debate (there really isnt one)
Im a "deiner" but this video was good. So if I understand correctly the world has not been cooling for the last 13 years but the scientist altered the graphs from the data collected from tree rings?
testingsthlm 9 months ago
@testingsthlm
stay tuned for the next video, which will be out in a week or so. I've been carefully studying this issue so as to make it as clear as possible.
answer is, no data were altered or destroyed, and the deniers are once again lying to you.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@testingsthlm the most reliable source of temp readings is thermometers... before thermometers you have to use other data from ice cores, tree rings, etc. Tree ring data for the time frame in which we have had thermometers tracks closely with the thermometer data except in the last few decades (probably due to other environmental factors) this doesn't mean it wasn't warmer--we still have the thermometer data--it just means that the divergence in tree rings must be accounted for. That's it.
PlasteredDragon 7 months ago
@PlasteredDragon
new video here
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
greenman3610 7 months ago
The so-called "climategate" emails were the deniers smoking gun that proved without doubt that all scientists are taking part in a major left-wing-green-environmental-tree-hugging conspiracy?
Unbelievable....
cherton 10 months ago
watch?v=raccWhLAJ0A&feature=related
Here's the REAL danger
wkbfutewc 11 months ago
You need to sound more impartial. Whilst i agree with most of your points you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder.
SuperRmck 11 months ago
@SuperRmck
I have a bias. I hate ignorance, and liars.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@SuperRmck It's a bit hard to sound impartial when all the evidence and the scientific consensus is on one side, and the other side only has lies, propoganda and Glenn Beck. How impartial can you be? Should we also be impartial about the debate of faeries in the garden?
vicweb1978 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Indeed, reality counts. It's tearing those models a new orifice. We've had no warming for the last 12 years. The projected tropospheric greenhouse hotspot is absent. Hurricane activity is neither more frequent nor more intense. Reality trumps the models, and the models have failed.
smartalek65 11 months ago
@smartalek65
you've memorized the talking points, I'll give you that.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@BeondaPale I will, next time she/he gets the forecast wrong. In fact, we here in Orlando still remember hurricane Charlie-that the models projected to be heading to a landfall north of Tampa only 6 hours before hitting here (landfall was Port Charlotte, near Ft. Myers). Don't feed me that baloney about model accuracy.
smartalek65 11 months ago
@smartalek65
bottom line.
in 81, Hansen started predicting the warming, based on models.
It got warmer.
watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
reality counts here.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Odd comment to Buckeyefarmer, seeing as it comes from a biased film-maker who echoes bonehead talking points in his youtube vids.
smartalek65 11 months ago
@ChaseKittens Evidence? Computer models aren't evidence. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific (like AGW). A consensus about anything relating to science renders it unscientific. If these scientists misrepresented the case, as well as attempted to silence their opposition, then it makes their false "consensus" a fraud. Especially in the face of countering evidence.
smartalek65 11 months ago
@smartalek65
"Computer models aren't evidence."
Tell that to a weatherman next time he tells you it's going to rain
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@smartalek65
Do you know the difference between systems science and "test tube" science"
Watch - Climate Change Debate: Scientific Mission Impossible watch?v=PwZAiUi2PcM
BeondaPale 11 months ago
The voice in the video gives that fake calm and reasonable tone. "Hi I'm reasonable. I'm not foolish. These are the facts because I showed a chart and sourced NASA. Anyone who doubts man-made climate change is a NAZI. The govt. loves you." Lol!
Buckeyefarmer 1 year ago
@Buckeyefarmer
maybe if you refuted the facts, not the voice, you'd have some credibility.
greenman3610 1 year ago
These GW cult members will say anything. Mojib Latif 1 of the authors of the IPCC says that temperatures may cool for the next 20 yrs, but that doesn't mean there isn't CO2 driven GW. What's the solution? More taxes of course. They spend billions on wars, but for GW we need to pay the govt. more money. These greenman videos are retarded & insulting to anyone who has a mind of their own. He references a bunch of corrupt special interest funded organizations as the be all end all of proof.
Buckeyefarmer 1 year ago
@Buckeyefarmer
Latif crock:
watch?v=khikoh3sJg8
pays to watch the videos before repeating bonehead talking points.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide translates into life on earth
JonThm 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Hardly a theory. It's an obvious fact that several scientists tried to maintain a position by misconduct. Whereas the conspiracy theory your side puts forth fails epicly.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@Beondapale It's actually YOU and Herr Grunmann who look ridiculous. I cite one example that shows definite misconduct on the part of an AGW-supporting scientist, and it is but 1 example, which proves the "investigations" to be incompetently done, and you try to dismiss it and he tries to avoid the issue. THAT is what looks ridiculous.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
Your position is nothing more than a giant conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with that, paranoia is a grand American tradition.
google
precious bodily fluids
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 OMFG "google: Precious bodily fluids"
I am stealing that line ;)
watercup123456 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Trying to blow off FACTS as political "talking points" demonstrates only that you have no defense for the hypocrisy your scientific, journalistic, and political allies engage in. This is especially egregious in the case of the IPCC report. It is purported to make the alarmist case based on real science, which is proven a LIE. It proves the science behind your position weak, and you have no defense?
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
The National Academy, NASA, The American Geophysical Union, The Geological Society of America, and I, have no defense. Your logic is unassailable.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@smartalek65
Can you even fathom how ridiculous you look by continuously and desperately trying to create mountains out of what are SO OBVIOUSLY molehills?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@smartalek65 " It proves the science behind your position weak"
You making a mountain out of a molehill doesn't overturn the scientific consensus on man's contributions to global warming. Even if these scientists were caught straight-up lying, that wouldn't overturn it either. Evidence is evidence. You just have to not be a wingnut to see it.
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
CONT'D Then there's the tacit acceptance of the supposed gold standard of advocates and alarmists, the IPCC. We're told that the alarmist assessment reports are based solely on peer-reviewed science; only to discover that the alarms are referenced to "research" by advocacy groups like greenpeace and world wildlife fund. And there's not a peep heard from you, Herr Grunmann, or your fellows in even shocked astonishment at such hypocrisy.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
I don't peep about Glenn Beck talking points.
I save my breath for factual material.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Then, let's bring into direct light the hypocrisy this "conspiracy" rant demonstrates. If anyone accepts one thin dime from any source even remotely tied to a fossil fuel company, they're entirely bought off and nothing they say can be true; yet there's no credibility problem with climate scientists who are paid 6 figures by and sit on an environmental advocacy group's board of directors CONT'D
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Btw, dude: drop the Dr. Strangelove reference. It really makes you look like a real flake.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Hahahaha! Is that your best answer? When your scientist friends are caught red-handed in their misdeeds, the investigations you tout as definitive proof of the lack thereof are proven incompetent or worse, the best answer you have is, "oh, it's a conspiracy???" It's little wonder the public has lost interest in fixing this alleged 'problem.'
smartalek65 1 year ago
CONT'D Point is, it's hard to take an investigation as a serious and honest inquiry when it says 'no evidence of scientific misconduct' and such a blatant abuse of a submitted paper by a referee sits so obviously open in the emails. Those "investigations" can't be anything but whitewashes under such conditions.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
right, global communist conspiracy, precious bodily fluids, yada yada
greenman3610 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Gee, I dunno. Maybe if you looked up Kieth Briffa's email to Ed Cook on Dec. 17, 2001, you might see the lack of real honesty in those "investigations." Briffa was a peer-reviewer of a paper Cook and Jan Esper submitted to SCIENCE. He's telling Cook to rephrase sections of that paper. Mind you, dinky, revisions are properly sent to the editor.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf Honestly, dude, if you only go by 1 email that somebody else told you the contents of, no offense but you'll come off looking like an easily manipulated fool. Some of the emails are benign in nature, but others reveal things not discussed by any MSM outlet-not even FoxNews, purported by the left to be the most vocal of it's opposition.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf An email of January 21, 2005, is where Dr Wigley talks of getting Saiers "ousted." Within the exchange, there's a copy of a reply to Wigley's complaint to GRL editor-in-chief Steve Mackwell about concerns of the McIntyre & McKitrick paper in GRL that triggered Mann & co.'s anger. But really, you should look through those emails yourself. There's MUCH more than our host lets on here.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 & Beyondapale Yes, we do know why. Here, it's the topic of this vid. On other comment sections from our host, science IS discussed, and we (whom you call by pejoratives) are absolutely owning your side.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
There's fluoride in that there water!! The end is nigh !!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
they are after your precious bodily fluids.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I'd love to see that part of Dr Strangelove in your "corruption of science" crock video
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
heh he hee
greenman3610 1 year ago
I notice that the greenman3610 haters don't talk too much about climate science, opting instead to talk about the people performing science.
....I wonder why
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
I think we know why.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 "COMPREHENSIVE?" HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's rich! If you believe that, I've got a bridge in New York City named after one of the burroughs to sell...
smartalek65 1 year ago
I have to agree with smartalek65. You neglected to mention a ton of scandalous information and merely presented a few points where we have to take them at their word when they try to explain that it's taken out of context.
haterdrinkinhaterade 1 year ago
@haterdrinkinhaterade
there have been 6 comprehensive investigations, and hundreds or journalistic ones.
You are in Glenn Beck conspiracy territory to suggest there is something there that is being concealed.
greenman3610 1 year ago
CONT'D That was the standard you set, and now attempt to defend Wigley's actions with the unimportant and unprovable notion that the attempt failed. Any impartial investigation would have found this tampering unacceptable, and this defense ridiculous. Mann's actual defense was no better.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Another one is of your own doing. During our discussion of the Climate Research flap, you used 2 defenses: the non-issue paper, and that Mann/Jones didn't act on their "options." Nevermind, apparently, that Jones emailed that he'd had words with Hans Von Storch about the offending editor. Here, we have Wigley ACTING ON that that threat to oust a GRL editor.CONT'D
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'm not the only one not fooled. A UK prosecutor failed to press charges due to a thing called a statute of limitations. Denying an FOIA request without true cause is a crime. That's just one problem with your smokescreen.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 How many investigations? 1 HONEST one, not a series of whitewashes that accepts the lamest of answers as truth, refuses to seat skeptics on the panels, and blatantly fails to seriously probe allegations-then brazenly denies the obvious truth.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
Its a conspiracy.
They're all in on it.
Only you see the truth.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Those emails and docs in the so-called climategate batch revealed a LOT more than just simple things you try (rather poorly) to defend here. Concerted efforts to deny FOIA requests, efforts to tamper with publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals, efforts to prevent any skeptical views from being discussed at IPCC, even the odd way one of them thought the death of a skeptic was "cheering news." Give us a break from trying to pretend reality isn't real, Herr grunmann.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
well, there have been 6 official investigations, not to mention numerous journalistic inquiries, which have turned up only a little towel snapping among the boys.
Yet you insist on repeating your Glenn Beck talking points.
How many investigations would it take to satisfy you?
meanwhile, the planet keeps warming......
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 As for when you accuse skeptics of accepting pay-offs from oil companies, perhaps someone should ask you about the IPCC's accepting research from the likes of greenpeace and other enviro-nut organizations as "scientific" proof that a catastrophe is imminent. Why aren't you acknowledging the wrong in that? Or that alarmists like Michael Oppenheimer sitting on the board, and PAID for it, of another such org?
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Got ADD much? We're discussing the unethical efforts against a GRL editor, and you want to make the blatantly false accusation that I'm "defending" a paper in ANOTHER JOURNAL that I've never defended. Try again, discuss the issue at hand, though. Perhaps you should obey that maxim you quoted from Franklin earlier.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65 Well, Herr grunmann? What have you to say? Wigley and Mann talked of efforts to intimidate a GRL editor for no more than "being in the skeptics' camp," AND CARRIED IT OUT. This is unacceptable, even by your own stated standards. Whether Saiers left because of it or not doesn't matter, that the effort was made DOES. This is a clear case of attempting to suppress scientific research from the journals by intimidation.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
uhmm...the guy said he was not intimidated, and left at the end of his tenure.
why do you have to make stuff up?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 It's YOU who makes stuff up. You're using a classic strawman argument. Re-read my last post. In those emails, Wigley and Mann talk of AND CARRY OUT an effort to intimidate by trying to "oust" a GRL editor. Whether or not it succeeded DOES NOT MATTER FOR OUR PURPOSES. That they tried an unethical tactic DOES. The message is loud and clear-doubt what we say, and we'll try to oust whoever does, so don't try to publish anything we don't like.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65 What was unethical? I didn't see anything unethical in the e-mail I saw. Given the publishing of trashy papers Mann suggested that serious climatologists should consider not providing papers for said publication. I don't see a problem there.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@Maxdwolf You might try reading all the exchanges concerning the Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters efforts to rid the journals of editors found to be "troublesome" or "in the skeptics' camp." You're reading only one email, try the ones where it's suggested that the editor be ousted (Mann in Climate Research, Wigley in GRL flap). Obviously, it's more than "not submitting papers." It's an active attempt to tamper with journals' processes.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65 Given your tendency to misrepresent, I'm not about to go searching through thousands of e-mails to satisfy your claim, particularly since others have already gone there and found nothing.. Give the date of the e-mail or the url to which you are referring.
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Putting the point bluntly, sir, you're defending (giving tacit approval to) an effort to, at the very least, intimidate the editorial staff of a respected refereed journal for having the daring to consider and publish a paper that caused certain scientists to think him-gasp! Oh the horror-a skeptic. This is a punch in the nose to scientific inquiry, the very heart of science.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
putting it bluntly - Soon's paper stunk the joint up so bad that half the staff bailed in disgust. You're still defending Soon, that ship sailed 7 years ago. His reputation sank when he took oil company money to write one of the worst paper's published in decades.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Actually, the flap I mentioned goes much deeper than whether or not Wigley got him fired or not. The Climate Research flap, which we were discussing before, I pointed out the Mann/Jones discussing ways to rid a journal of an editor for disagreeing with their views. You defended your pal by saying they didn't act on their words. This time, somebody DID.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 I'm disappointed our host has seemingly lost his will to defend his friends and his argument. Note his last post-LAME! I'm disappointed because there's a lot more he didn't cover in these 2 vids, like the firing of Prof. James Saiers at GRL. More attempted intimidatiom by the friendly crew...
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
Per Newsweek and Factcheck org:
"then another professor (and blogger) asked Saiers about the Wigley e-mail, Saiers responded: "I stepped down as GRL editor at the end of my three-year term. ... My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked."
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Ben Franklin
Happy thanksgiving
greenman3610 1 year ago
Global warming by CO2 is now old news as it has already been proven a hoax. You donot have to be a scientist to know this. If the globe is warming, it would be prudent to fund both man made and natural causes equally to get the correct answer. But in the US alone over 70 billion has been spent to study man made and 0 to fund natural causes. Even a moron can figure out what the result will be. The earth is always cooling or warming over periods of time. DUHH!
whitedogfive 1 year ago
Nature mag has disregarded it's own requirements in order to accommodate the Climate Gang's illicit hiding of the data method and code used to obtain results, which makes many of their papers consist of non evidence.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
When you don't have any science, just make the conspiracy bigger.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 facts are facts, dude. it happened.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
lol - "nature mag"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@beondapale Is that the best you and greenman can do? LOL! Anybody wonder what it means when our host can't answer when called on his tactics and some random member posts the lamest of ad hominems as the best can be done?
smartalek65 1 year ago
Anybody think smartalek65 is a spam troll?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
ya think?
greenman3610 1 year ago
CONT'D For instance, notice greenman3610 never cites the IPCC.That's wise, as the IPCC has been beleaguered by a number of revealing scandals over the last year. Not the least of which is the recent Inter-Academies Council's rebuke of the IPCC for violating it's own stated rules and procedures regarding materials that could be cited for it's 4th assessment report. This causes severe credibility issues.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
greenman cited the 1990 IPCC on "Lamb's" graph. But as you say, whenever one starts to cite IPCC...probably going wrong.
In this case, the IPCC report gives no information on author of the graph. No citation. Lousy work. Not even high school passing grade for that.
No way to tell what was used...it's a 1990 work, apparently by IIPCC.
So when greenie does cite IPCC, he's messed up once more. No good source for his info..again.
C'est dommage
pointyhead1 1 year ago
3-He constantly and proudly appeals to authorities to prove he's right. While it's a good initial PR move, it indicates poor command of the facts. It's also a double-edged sword: if these authorities are scandalized even slightly, it causes the audience to disbelieve what the person citing them says.
smartalek65 1 year ago
2-To most environmentalists, the end justifies the means. Notice that Mr. Sinclair never admits when he's wrong when he's unequivocally called on his misrepresentations. So what? He's making a point for a good cause. This his appearent attitude, the end justifies the means. But that's the same attitude and excuse used by tyrranical regimes throughout history.
smartalek65 1 year ago
For those still reading along, I'll point out the biggest of mistakes Herr Sinclair (greenman3610) makes. He's fallen into the same propoganda traps that most environmentalists fall. 1-Take all your info from those who agree with you. This would explain why I seem to get the better of him in these discussions: because I know both sides of this debate.
smartalek65 1 year ago
CONT'D Now, understand it's not my intent to be mean-spirited to you, greenman, nor is it to be crass. But it's been high time that someone show you the errors in your belief in AGW, and living up to my handle seems the only way to make you understand that your terminology is offensive and dehumanizing. You would do well, if you seek honesty and truth, to drop such pejoratives as "denier."
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Those were just what falsehoods and distortions you've posted on THIS thread. Would you prefer I point out all the others from your other threads? Like when you falsely accused ttowntom of "cherrypicking" data from a legitimate paper in the literature, only to be entirely unable to point out where the paper contradicted anything tom quoted. You failed to admit your mistake and apologize-thus compounding them.
smartalek65 1 year ago
CONT'D 3) You imply that we're discussing this issue as a legal problem-which will come later when we get to FOIA requests. Truth: I made it clear in a previous post that what Mann/Jones were seriously discussing as a real option was a breach of scientific ethics, not law.
smartalek65 1 year ago
CONT'D Falsehood 2) You say that I stipulated that Mann/Jones didn't act on their discussed options. Truth: I remarked that they deny having done so, which proves nothing either way. The troubling and problematic issue is that they even discussed it as a serious option at all.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Perhaps we should review your falsehoods of the last few days. 1) You said I stand on the side of quacks whe published a flawed literary study. Truth: Not even once have I defended this paper. It's not even the topic of discussion here. The leaked emails didn't reveal the Soon/Baliunas paper's flaws, they revealed Mann/Jones' serious discussion of options that should be condemned by any serious scientist. Whether or not they acted hardly matters for our purpose here.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 What's clear is that you live in an alternate reality where threats, intimidation, personal smears (like that against David Legates), censorship (like what happened to Bjorn Lomborg), and such tactics are legitimate options for scientists. That, friend, is most clear, due to the fact that you refuse to disavow such acts. Whereas I have the basic honesty to acknowledge a flawed paper, you dishonestly make it the justification for discussion of dispicable acts.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Keep trying to twist my words, makes you look more like the jackwagon my drill instructor would have called you. Both Mann & Jones deny carrying out their threats-doesn't prove whether they did or not. You still avoid the point and I won't quit hammering you on it: threats and intimidation towards editors of a journal should NOT EVEN BE AN OPTION. You evidently think it's acceptable. Got it.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
I think it is clear that you live in a dream world.
No one threatened anyone. The offending article was published, much to the mortification of all involved. It was an embarrassment to science, but obviously a point of pride for you.
Clearly this is a big deal to you, but private conversations and wistful thinking do not constitute actions under any conceiveable legal doctrine.
Post away my friend. If you can't keep it rational, at least keep it clean.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Call it what you want, but that's NOT what is Mann & Jones are being blasted for. They didn't express any notion that they even realized there was any "questionable" funding. You think threats against and intimidation of a journal's staff should be an option. Got it. Science ethics doesn't agree.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
you have stipulated that no threats occurred.
Now you say they have.
....so they were making psychic threats with their brain waves??
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 WRONG! The issue raised isn't whether a paper was published with numerous flaws. The issue raised by the leaked emails (THE subject of your vid)was the reaction to it. To even suggest intimidation or other such action against the editors of a scientific journal is NEVER acceptable, no matter the perceived provocation.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
Exxon disinfo = good.
Scientists outraged by it = bad.
Got it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Avoid the real issue much? It's not about Von Storch's resignation. It's about these 2 contemplating intimidating the editor of a scientific journal. For scientists, this should be unthinkable. It's little wonder you need those pats on the head from Mann and his co-conspirators (guilty of much more than we're talking about now); you're getting owned on your own thread.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
The real issue is that exxon funded disinformation was being published in a journal that pretended to be a serious science publication.
Real scientists found this to be disturbing. For you, its just business as usual. Fine.
I have a different value set, and so, thankfully, did the editorial board of the journal.
greenman3610 1 year ago
CONT'D What you say here first is another example of distorting facts. What I exactly said was that both scientists denied acting (natch, if they had and admitted to it, that would make clearing them awkward for the whitewashes to come) and Von Storch denied reacting to pressure when he resigned. This only means that Von Storch was ignorant of or ignored any such actions.Proves nothinp either way.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
oh.
so von Storch was subconsciously reacting to their negative vibes.
got it.
The bastards!
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 You excel at twisting what others say. We speaking on the climategate emails generally and you want to make it about the paper, which was NEVER under discussion. The fact is, that's exactly what Mann & Jones were discussing. For scientists to even THINK of doing such things is reprehensible, to say the least. As I said before, there are appropriate outlets for a scientist to express outrage if he/she feels the paper is flawed.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 PROVE IT you can't just make crap up and say its true! What time period last ohh 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years 5000 years? What. Yes NOAA is a GOVERNMENT agency, whom I applied to work for once, and has an agenda for grants.
kiffter 1 year ago
@greenman3610 And your on the side who must maintain it's exalted position by intimidation, threats, smears, deceipt, censorship, and fearmongering. I hope you need not be reminded of the misdeeds done in the name of Global Warming alarmism.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
You've just agreed that no intimidation, threat, smear or censorship took place in the instance you mentioned.
What strange delusions are you raving about now?
I think it is perfectly appropriate for scientists like Mann, Jones, and Von Storch, to be outraged by transparent Exxon funded disinformation being given approval by a journal that claims credibility. This should be the self policing component of the peer review system, which broke down in this case.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Let's review for our cone-hat wearer, greenman. Some journal publishes a literature review that a couple scientists don't like. It's got serious flaws, and instead of doing the right thing and pointing out these flaws; these scientists talk about using intimidation tactics like pressuring the publisher to fire the editor. Somehow, according to greenman, the world should be ok with this.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
let's review your position.
You're on the side of the quacks who wrote a study so bad that no real scientist is willing to be associated with it.
I'm saying, a quack is a quack.
Sue me.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'm amused that you can pretend to be that dense. Your wife must get a regular laugh-riot out of you. LOL!
smartalek65 1 year ago
CONT'D Jones and Mann deny carrying out the threats,and Von Storch says no pressure caused his resignation. However, the very idea shouldn't have been even considered, as in science this is a "hanging offense." The very idea of attempting to intimidate an editor of a scientific journal for publishing a submitted study because it's contrary to his/her/their opinion smacks of tampering. Even if it's scientifically questionable-in which case, it wouldn't be worth bothering.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
so, scientists discussing "ideas" is a hanging offense.
check.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 As is becoming the norm with you, you didn't adress the point. The point is: that Jones and Mann even DISCUSSED pressuring the publication's board to act against it's editor and trying to denigrate the journal itself, rather than the time-honored method of submitting a formal reply to the journal, is troubling to say the least. That's only the beginning of the problems this scandal brings to AGW.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 If you chose your words more carefully, you might have fewer such problems. You might answer the REAL problems climategate poses to your side of the argument. Like Mann and Jones' threats and gloating around the ouster of Von Storch at Climate Research. Even the thought of 2 prominent scientists misbehaving like this is troubling.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
if you google
von storch climate research
or if you watch my climate hack part 2 vid
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
You'll see that von Storch resigned the position because he was so disgusted with the publication of the trash Soon and Balliunas paper -- 4 other members of the editorial board went with him, and the publisher had to issue an apology.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 The first mischaracterization made on this vid is basic: the emails and documents weren't "hacked," that would be next to impossible even for an expert and determined hacker. They were, in all probability, published by an insider. Leaked by a whistleblower is how this is usually termed. Hacking is completely illegal, whereas whistleblowing is protected by law.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
a devastating critique.
I stagger, awaiting the next thundering blow.
greenman3610 1 year ago
this explains the holes in your flawed arguements on a level you might understand, it illustrates this quite simply.
watch?v=tIQ70is-RPM&feature=related
watch?v=2v4j0087RGM&feature=&p=55425102C8AF4B02&index=0&playnext=1
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter
"A climategate christmas"?
That's your source? Really?
Geez, man, Glenn Beck would be a step up for you.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 why it doesn't change the facts your not addressing.... its all fear mongering BS. its not warming, while he have snowfalls in the deserts, and the amazon almost freezes...
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter
2009, second warmest year on the record
2010, heading for warmest on the record
2000-2009, warmest decade in the record
google
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
greenman3610 1 year ago
watch?v=_-UhykvGaD0
also tree ring data is a HORRIBLE way to gather temp data... just ask briffa!
kiffter 1 year ago
mor ename calling nonsense and lack of facts... repeat repeat repeat
kiffter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here all along ,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Find this technology at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
graywackeknifebdr 1 year ago
the problem is when you tweek data, to hava "the real" temperatures.. what science is this when you tweek it to some expected result. the real science SHOULD know, why didn't tree data colerate to their theory. these email fragments show the frustration of not corresponding data. of course they wouldn't for a second think it's not getting warmer so it's strawman argument to say email were meant to prove anything more than they discard anything not proving warming. that is not science.
gorg22222 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News Today from the COAPS Hurricane Research Center: Global hurricane activity at the lowest point in 33 years; Pacific activity lowest in recorded history.
Remember when GW fanatics told us warming would lead to more, stronger, hurricanes? Oops again!
ttowntom 1 year ago
F you ya ecofascist doesn't matter if its real you will be taxed. I ride a bicycle so kiss my ass ya ecoterrorist suv driving yuppies. Keep giving your money to the chinese ya dopey fux. Who is going to clean the island of spring water bottles in the pacific Poland spring or your taxes. Answer that one smarty pants, BP oil spill is not my fault so get you and your rich friends to throw a dinner, you going to show how GMO food is good for us too. Man bear pig lover. Did they cut the funding?
OrgoftheOrganized 1 year ago
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
ttowntom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop these
information. If you want a Free energy machine , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
intermitrj 1 year ago
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
from the hottest summer, to the coldest winter in 1000 years.
nothing to see here, move on.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610, are you genetically incapable of telling the truth? 2010 was the second hottest summer since the 1880s (2003 was the hottest). That's a far cry from the coldest -- or the hottest -- in 1000 years.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Russian Meteorological Center: “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat.”
11000 dead in Moscow.
I guess if you can claim gifts of prophecy about the winter, I can cite actual official sources.
for my vids on this summer's heat-
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
ttowntom 1 year ago
lol, the climate hasn't been cooling? You should look at the temperature over millions of years. It's been cold 90% of that time. This warm period isn't even the highest compared to the past.
Sure, just look at the pass 1000 years and it's easy to be ignorant. That's where the hockey stick figure comes from.
DISINFO
snowboarderforlyfe 1 year ago
@snowboarderforlyfe
thanks for mentioning the
"it's cooling" canard--
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
ttowntom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's this shit?
If you wanna see real hackers at work and hacking into e-mail / myspace / facebook accounts,
I suggest you pay a visit to hackingservices (.) org
Galettiable 1 year ago
We have two issues here: 1) is "climate change" man-made? 2) if so, should the broke and broken governments that continually prove to be incompetent provide the solution? These are two separate questions; but in this debate they are treated as one. This is akin to concluding that government is the solution to the drug problem ("war on drugs"). So long as science and politics remain fused in this argument, debate over the science will be nothing but background noise
Mises85 1 year ago
Is it me or does Dr. Christy look like Ted Turner?
rjbonacolta 1 year ago
@rjbonacolta
No,
it's Ned Flanders.
greenman3610 1 year ago
NY Times (7/1/10): “An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. MANN, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.
“An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.”
goog2k 1 year ago
Big jump there calling me a science denier.
Your way of thinking is not the only one and claiming that you alone or your group speaks for science sounds more like dogma than science.
If there are other proxies they must stand alone so as not to be contaminated with an erroneous proxy which would by referral undermine there very validity.
watgaanhieraan 1 year ago
When I first heard about climate gate I was confused becuase the last several winters were abnormally warm. It was spring in January at one point in the North East. I was thinking if Global Warming is supposed to be a hoax then what's causing the warm weather in winter.
slicingwater 1 year ago
wat
watgaanhieraan 1 year ago
Why does everyone hate on the scientific community? Anything anyone publishes can be proved or disproved by any other people. If this really were a fraud, there would be plenty of scientists to call it out. And if people really do want to have a valid opinion they should educate themselves on the subject and conduct their own experiments.
lee155912000 1 year ago
You definitely have not done a good job with this video. The trick appears to be fraud. On to the next one.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash
show me one of the subsequent investigations that agrees with your interpretation.
Oh right, they're all in on the plot.
I forgot.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I am not talking about any investigation. Watch this video fully. He basically says data has been fudged and that is ok. In science you have several independent verification of the same phenomenon, that all agree. Here the tree ring data disagrees and they just 'phase it out'. Watch this video
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash
again, this has been looked at by every relevant scientific, academic, journalistic,
legislative, and investigative authority, and they all say you are delusional.
Show me I'm wrong. Obviously I watched the video, I made it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Oh yes, you did make the video. YouTube has changed its color coding. In your video you admitted that data was fudged and then you tried to casually dismiss it. And now argument from authority. To be honest, I was finding many of your videos plausible if not convincing. So I was eagerly awaiting on what you had to say on 'the trick'. And you admitted that it was in fact a trick. There is nothing more to say about that.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash I'd respond to your comment but I can't find any logic in it. Nor can I find any logic in any of your other posts. Could you take maybe one more smart pill then write some more? Maybe that way we could make heads or tails of what you write.
Damn! Sometimes deniers are just so goofy...or delusional...or both. I can't wait for his response.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 You must not know much about logic.He actually said in this video that some of the data, particularly the tree ring data temperatures did not match data from other sources where before it did. Apparently no one knows why, but the brilliant scientists decided to rub off the disagreeing data. That is plain and simple fudging aka fraud and he agrees that it has been done and tries not to make a big deal about it. You think that is logical? Fudging data.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash Wrong, and non-sequitur to boot. Briffa et al agreed that the tree ring data diverged from the measured temp data. There was no fraud. Your interpretation of the explanation is lacking in an honest assessment of the facts, a common denier weakness. That's why deniers get laughed at; you make strawman arguments, then cry like Glenn Beck when someone calls B.S. on you.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 They agreed that the tree ring data diverged and very casually covered it up, the trick. Because they could not explain why it diverged. That is fraud. Imagine if Kepler had done that
watch?v=kDC472IiOe0
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash Gee, if they "very casually covered it up" then why do we even know about the tree ring data? Nope, no fraud here, just conspiracy theorists crazy with silly attempts to find something that just isn't there. You really should do some more homework on this. All of your posts on this video have been debunked by amateurs like me. Which denier fallacy are you going to bring up next? 1998? CO2 lag? MWP? Cosmic rays? Sea ice? Already debunked, and more...yer such a goof...
sTevefor3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sTevefor3
Gee, if they "very casually covered it up" then why do we even know about the tree ring data?
Stolen emails. That is how. Don't try to bullshit me. I did not speak about Sea ice or cosmic rays or anything like that. When you have a weak position, try to cover for it with mockery helps.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash You are retarded. You either didn't watch the video or didn't understand it. The tree ring data diverges because tree growth doesn't just rely on warmth but other factors. If those other factors slow growth they will no longer track the temp data. It is a valid reason for leaving it out and the graph doesn't even require the addition of tree ring data to show warming.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl You said it now. But what you said is not in the video.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash actually it IS in the video, I just paid attention. Maybe you should try it.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl Really? Then point out to me the time segment, where it says so.
I saw the video AGAIN because of you. The part I talk about is from 4:50 to 5:58 He does not give the explanation you did (WITHOUT SITING SOURCES). But at around 5:10 he does say 'NO ONE KNOWS WHY'. A little later he admits they just rubbed off inconvenient data at around 5:30
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash It is common sense that tree growth depends on more than temperature (I have studies biology for many years, but a primary school student could tell you that too). The depend on light level, nutrient availability, soil pH, water levels and may be negatively affected by a number of other factors.I could site Campbell's biology from McGraw Hill but if you have half a brain you'd know I'm right anyway. He says no one knows why but it is irrelevant to the discussion because (continued)
kcdl 1 year ago
@82abhilash there were many other line of evidence that did track the temp accurately. It was only added as supporting evidence however other factors came in that made them poor indicators after a certain period. It would be idiot to assume that because the tree ring growth stop tracking the temp that all the other multiple lines of evidence must be indicating the wrong temp. Trees are not thermometer and only track temp if all their other requirements are met. It would be nice to know (cont)
kcdl 1 year ago
@82abhilash why the stopped tracking the data but not germaine to the arguement. The fact the stop tracking the data might be a bad environment indicator in itself. Where did I get all this from, it is call thinking it through. No if you can pose a counter arguement as to why tree ring data should be put ahead of thermometers and other data to indicate temperature go ahead. I will be happy to shoot down whatever illogical crap you come up with.
kcdl 1 year ago