@TurboDally Have a look on the "woodfortrees" website. choose any data, (apart from GISS which is run by IPCC's Hansen). Hadcrut global is best. Then set to the last decade. 2001. If you open a fresh series for "linear trend ols" over the start date you will see it slopes down.
Over the past couple of lifetimes, the Sun has been overactive. We might see up to a couple of decades of cooling weather now. Arctic sea ice is back to normal. Sea levels are dropping. The mesosphere is collapsing etc.
The last decade was the warmest on record, yet you clowns claim there was no significant warming. Yes, the scam of global warming denialism HAS been totally debunked.
45% more c02 than 10 years ago yet we do not see any more warming than we saw in 1998. More c02 should = higher temperatures if the theory is valid. Since see any increased warming you can logically deduce that c02 is not a strong driver of climate. Even Phil Jones of the CRU admits there has been no statistically signifigant warming. Scam Debunked!
That is only from 1 temperature data set while the other 9 disagree about 2010. If AGW was a real issue we would see clear record setting temperatures every year. WHat we see instead is no statistically warming in over 15 year with record c02 emissions. AGW DEBUNKED!
This isn't one fo the believer echo chambers, you have to address the real world factual situation. Global warming is a global bust, even the warmist phil jones admits there has been no statistically signifigant warming. Now that Kyoto has been wisely torpedoed by world leaders we will have 8 years to see if any warming appears. I wouldn't bet money on it within cliamtegate scientists admit that this could just be a multi decadal phenomena.
Repeating the lie about "no statistically significant warming" won't make it become true. Nor will falsely attributing your lie to Phil Jones. There most certainly has been "statistically significant warming" over the last 15 years.
Jones was asked on BBC if there was any statistically signifigant warming. He said NO! Not that it matters as anyone can download the data and plot it in a spreadsheet themselves to see. The fact of the matter is that more c02 does not neccesarily mean higher average temperatures. Clearly the many other factors that make up cliamte dwarf the relevance of C02. On this there is no disagreement. Global warming related to co2 emissions is just not that important. Watch the Video!
All of those claims are false, naturally. But since you're a global warming denier, you don't care about facts. You'll just repeat the lie and hope that makes people believe it.
In the real world, the last decade has been the hottest on record. The hottest year on record so far is 2010. Yet somehow you expect people to buy your nonsense about global cooling?
@RedXlV You are in denial. Go onto the "woodfortrees" website and check out this last decade.. It's irrefutable. I believe in global warming (and cooling). Its perfectly natural.
2/3's of the Earths existence saw 2000ppm CO2. It's been dropping for 70M years. We have returned a tiny part of this carbon cycle. 2010 was actually a tie, a weather glitch that 2011 made up for. Deniers use weather glitches lol.
For far more than 2/3 of Earth's existence, the climate would not have allowed human beings to survive. And the current warming is not part of a natural cycle. And about the "global cooling" lie:
The buddha taught that all suffering comes from ignorance. I hope the people who made this video keep it around for a long time, and watch it each year, and give it to their children.
What schmucks. Why don't you read the scientific paper? By "hiding the decline", what was meant is to merge the temperature estimates from tree ring formation, which is not reliable, to when accurate temperature data was actually available using scientific instruments. There was a divergence between the two in the 1960's or so, and that is hypothesized to be from drought. But the gullible ones who do not read the scientific papers think that there is something more sinister meant. Idiots!
@friedie1jeff What about the cooling in Antarctica? Average temperature has dropped -0.7c each decade, which has resulted in an increase of ~2.8 Gigatons of total antarctic ice coverage. GISS temperature data shows that, outside of the cities, global mean temperature has decreased since 1860. In fact, global temps dropped significantly from 1940-1970 when a majority of the CO2 of the 1990's was generated. Even worse, the upper atmosphere has seen no significant warming since 1979.
Jones: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
Mann: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
(So... pressure to prevent X from again publishing papers from certain people, yet they attack papers for not being published as if that proves something apolitcal?)
Great video! Love seeing someone making fun of those lying scientists. They release false data thinking the rest of America is too dumb to notice. Now the only dumb ones are the people who still support any of these fools.
You guys are not worthy to scrape the dirt from the boots of a real contributor to humanity, the excellent scientist Dr Michael Mann. Learn to grow up and cope with the truth of overwhelming evidence. It's rather pathetic to watch such squirming.
Wait you think Mann has contributed something to humanity? Well if it's ensuring that people know he's a fraud then yes I agree. Besides he doesn't hold anything to the contribution of humanity when you look at people like Norman Borlaug.
@topologyrob Actually, the data shows exactly the opposite. There was warming for a couple of decades, but it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with Solar and Sub-Terranean Radiological cycles.
I hope someone puts spanish, german, italian, potugues, etc... subtitles to this very funny and ilustrative cartoons about the big lie about global warming.
Why anybody would expect tree rings to be a good proxy for temperatures I just don't know. There is just too many things that effect the growth rate of trees. Also with tree rings you can pick and choose which tree rings to use too easily. Wouldn't it be smart to just do more studies of past temps using more dependable proxies than tree rings. And please use good scientists from both sides of this issue to do the studies.
@m8s4lif Maybe you should work out when you're treading outside your expertise - or do you go about and do your own dentistry, heart surgery and iPhone making?
does the maker of this video believe temperatures calculated from the tree ring data is more accurate than actually thermometers and other proxy data sets?
The hide the decline email was written in 1999. How can he be talking about hiding a supposed cooling trend from 99 to 08? The tree rings say we have been cooling since 1961. Your own data contradicts that. By the way 2009 was the second warmest year on record.
This video is stupid. Tree-rings are not a very accurate way of recording temperatures! Many factors can cause a tree to grow differently. That is why they hid the tree ring data, they didn't match actually temperature data from real thermometers. You idiots just want climate change to be a fraud so you ignore context.
@busguy100 It's not from tree ring data, it's from actual thermometers. Even then, you don't even need temperature data to prove the greenhouse effect is real, and increasing CO2 is real, and those two facts combined will change the climate.
@HOAXKiller1 No it's not, Mann used tree ring data from very few trees in a small area to make his "hockey stick". Because co2 increases, does not indicated that it drives temp, as in the past it has ALWAYS been a EFFECT of temp BOTH up and down by an average of 800 years
Dude... you should change your name. This is not about whether or not the greenhouse effect is real; this is about CO2-driven anthropogenic climate change. This is about the qualitative and quantitative effects of increases in CO2 levels.
We know WHY they plugged Inst-data into the tree-ring set. Do you fail to understand how that is dishonest? ...and how that is NOT proper science?
I think people should let scientists do their job. People don't understand that their job is hard, and that people have expectations for them to always be correct. But if people think its so easy, they should try doing what scientists do.
@fatkid1098 Yes, it would hurt greatly. Normal human activity is inconsequential compared to scale of the planet. To make policy based upon assumptions is nothing more than fear-mongering.
The climate will fluctuate regardless of what we do.
@fatkid1098 It won't matter a bit. Now, ask yourself: where is the most polution? In american plants with their waste management system and - just as an example - drving more and more hybrids or in - let's say - india; with 20 year old cars, homes with no sewers etc...
@fatkid1098 ...and , by the way, climate always changes, always, non-stop, and it does that since millions of years. now, why would climate change in 2010 be significant for the future?
"Hide the decline" Where "decline" means "The decline in correlation between tree ring data (which shows a cooling global temperature) and actual temperature readings (which shows a warming global temperature." It's a method in science and data analysis to include outlying data to reduce noise while not screwing up the actual data.
@gunsandbullhorns "The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998)." from "Trees tell of past climates: but are they
speaking less clearly today?" (IM me for link to citation if you want.)
No. I don't need citation. You have your facts in order. The point of contention is the word “decline”. I maintain that decline has always referred to a slope, and that while the email pertains to the divergence problem, the word “decline” refers to the downward slope in Briffa's latewood set which illustrates the divergence problem.
@gunsandbullhorns It refers to both a slope and a divergence, because that's what's happening. Temperatures reconstructed from the Tree ring data are dropping, while the /actual/ data recorded is going up at an average rate. The mechanism for this isn't exactly known, but scientists expect that the rise in temperature from the 1800s to the 1950s was enough to upset trees such that the correct reconstruction algorithm has changed. Thus we need a 'trick' to correct for it.
@gunsandbullhorns By how closely they match actual, directly measured temperature data. There are a number of statistical ways to do it. One is to simply subtract one graph from another to get a linear divergence.
@gunsandbullhorns Not really. While the trees data might be declining in temperature, the data can still be used to reduce noise in the big-picture. Astronomers (I am one) often use this technique. They take very bright, good pictures of galaxies and very dim or unfocused pictures of galaxies, 'normalize' them, and use it to reduce the overall fuzziness of the final picture. They even use a method called Deconvolution which is sort of a "trick" to mathematically focus data even after it's taken.
@pointyhead1 You're right, it doesn't refer to a decline in quality of data. It refers of a decline in temperatures extrapolated from trees for current temperatures. For a not completely understood reason, the tree data shows an overall declining temperature, but ACTUAL DIRECT readings show an increase. They're using the tree ring data to decrease the noise in the overall big picture because the tree ring data still sees relative increase and decreases. They're using the data to be more precise.
@pointyhead1 I can say it many ways. 'decrease noise' is one simple way. Maybe a more accurate one is 'to find a more accurate data' is another. or how about 'analyzing data to make better sense of trends'? Either way my point is that they have data; and in science there's hardly ever a reason to throw out data.
That being said, I'm not really sure what your objection to my statements is. There's tree ring data, and it declines while the rest of the temp data goes up. What's the issue?
@pointyhead1 No, they didn't. They used mike's nature trick to incorporate the tree ring data; and for your response above:
They take trees from all over the world and combine the data from year round to get a global average temperature. They use statistical analysis to combine the temperatures.
No, the proxies don't always match local temperatures, but they aren't meant to. We're looking at a global average, not your local on the 8's.
2/ warming is not even...an equatorial zone will not show what a northern polare region shows. This is very very basic basic understanding that you have wrong.
So you are saying there is ZERO attempt to get proxies that have a correlation of local temp changes to local tree growth patterns. Serop need for correlation between local proxy and local temp changes.
@jpsousa4 It doesn;t matter what "neutral' showing proxies, or what proxies are used as stuffing...so long as they cancel in some spots ( MWP LIA) and what produces the hockey stick is a very very select few trees from questionable proxies...without the few suspect proxies, there is no thousand year hockey stick. NADA. Gone. Poof.
@pointyhead1 I'd like to see this for my own eyes. Where did you find that adding in "one or two questionable proxies" makes a hockey stick?
Also, if tree ring data is /decreasing/ today while real temps are increasing, and if tree ring data approximately follows other data for temperature before the 1800s, why would it make a hockey stick?
@jpsousa4 "if tree ring data is /decreasing/ today while real temps are increasing, and if tree ring data approximately follows other data for temperature before the 1800s, why would it make a hockey stick?"
there are two answers 1/ of course, the post 1961 downward sloping data was deleted. How can you forget that so soon ?
Do we need to discuss again that the downward slope was deleted ?
1/ you need something to hammer down MWP and lift LIA to make the handle flat for a thousand years...or there is no claim of "unprecedented" ( if it goes up- higher than "now")
As well you need a blade goin up,you need a high sigma spike proxy. If you don't have the blade, you can't say anything about what happened previously..
S it needs both And it can't be done clean,. the most that can be verifiably done is 350 years backcast.
If the hockey stick does not have both flat handle and a blade, then the CO2/temperature relationship is muddled..and nothing can be said, once again.
This is an important point..and why the elimination of LIA has been of some import. LIA - even though it's not a hot period, it can also help sink the proposition of CO2/ temperature linear relationship
@jpsousa4 so this temperature data to be had from a siberian tree...is it to match known temperature changes in Siberia, or known changes in Hawiaii ?
@pointyhead1 continuing: In other words, if the entire global average temperature is 1 degree higher than it was. Then both Siberia and Hawaii on average will be one degree warmer through the year. This is actually panning out, because we've been seeing "Meh" low temperatures where it's cold (with plenty of snow because a warmer atmosphere can absorb more water), and more and more record breaking highs year after year in many places where it's warm.
Pointy, so what he's saying is that my tree in Siberia will grow according to a relation to global average temp, regardless of if temp rose or dropped where the tree is growing.
so if temps decrease in Siberia for one year, but increase in other areas, the tree will reflect temps from the other areas, instead of from where it is growing.
hehehe. good one. the craziness gets better and better.
Why use temps relating to the Amazon when the tree grew in Siberia ?
BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!! BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH!!!!!!!!!
@garlicbreds You made some good points, but I think you miss the overall point. I'll address each one.
1. Thanks for noting the tree-ring proxies do diverge, unlike Mann et. al. At least you are willing to acknowledge there are issues with the data and they were trying to hide the divergence by mixing their datasets. It's this behaviour of Mann and others that I found most objectionable.
global warming was invented to pass cap and trade so a bunch of already rich fat pigs could get richer much richer the scientists involved should be ashamed of there involvement and should be criminaly prosecuted
Global warming was first proposed in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who very accurately calculated the predicted temperature at different atmospheric CO2 levels.
@wildcrazygoats even if there was global warming man made that is no one will accept it as long as all these corrupt gov. officials and billionairs are trying to push it for a thirteen trillion dollar a year industry in which they have all bought into duh dont cut off your nose to spite your face crazygoat. by the way i actually own goats
@OregonOutlaw2000 Oh really because the greenhouse effect and global warming were discovered in 1824. You think there is 100+ year old people finally getting their way? LOL! idiots.
There was a blizzard just a couple of days ago, in Alberta, Canada.
I also, can't help thinking that the HAARP antennas in Alaska, & other countries, say, n Norway, etc.- have a lot to do with the times the atmosphere heats up.
July 16, 2010 Portland/Vancouver projected lows for the next five days are 50°F. Highs in the low 70s. We haven't had a warm Summer night yet, this year.
Jct: Thank god for you guys keeping the issue how while academe tries to find ways to alibi their intellectual crimes. Loved the way they focus on the true crime: "hide the decline."
@garlicbreds Silly wabbit. Don't you realize that the fact the tree ring data did not match observed temperature trends casts the entire paleoclimate model constructed on that data set into doubt? Mann used two data sets for his chart without acknowleding the divergance or that he tacked on a different data set to make his research look like it was in the realm of observable reality.
@DanAtMnMajority Tree ring divergence is not something new - its been well known for quite some time. I dont believe it "casts the entire paleoclimate model constructed on that data set into doubt". You do not need tree ring data to make a hockey stick - you can use ice cores, corals, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites... all give the same result.
More to the point - if Mann's work was dodgey, then how is it that 3 independant investigations have failed to find fault?
@DanAtMnMajority ... But thanks for your intelligent & articulate response ... thats unusual here!
More:
1.Divergence doesn't occur with all tree-ring proxies but mostly in higher latitude sites with low latitude sites showing less or no divergence
2.When you compare high latitude tree-ring proxies that show divergence to the low latitude tree-ring proxies that have no divergence, the two track each other back to the MWP. This shows the divergence problem is unique to recent decades.
3. When you exclude tree-rings and only use other proxies, the same result is found - that the last few decades are warmer than any period over the past 1300 years.
I think that amongst non-experts, the really important point is that the recent investigations have found no fault with Mann's work.
I find it laughable that some people here - who cannot even compose a sentence properly - believe that they are capable of debating the science intelligently. Thats arrogance!
@garlicbreds Deciding who to trust is part of life; we cannot be an expert at everything. Let's say I have cancer. Ivy League Doc says I need horribly disfiguring surgery. Cow College Doc says no, just a minor operation and some chemo has as good prognosis as anything. Dilemma!
I ask some questions and Ivy League Doc is arrogant and resentful. Cow College Doc is welcomes questions and explains everything. I ditch Ivy League Doc immediately.
@Skeptic121 Exactly! - we must trust our experts. To not do so is pretty arrogant.
Now tell me exactly what you dont like about 'those emails' - or have you believed the 'very trustworthy' fellows at wattsupwiththat & their incredible lies, who are not experts, and have been publishing the most outrageous crap Ive ever seen.
What about the many experts who officially investigated the emails - did they find anything that causes alarm? No they didnt.
@garlicbreds We must often decide WHICH experts to trust. We often receive very different medical advice from different doctors. There are experts on BOTH SIDES of the global warming debate. I tend to trust the experts who are willing to explain their reasoning to laymen honestly, without arrogance and condescension. The infamous e-mails fail the test. "Why should I help you..." is nothing if not arrogant and condescending. A URL for the data would have won me over, but too late now.
@Skeptic121 Im not sure who told you "Why should I help you.." - ive never experienced that personally - or are you talking about the denial of freedom of information (FOI) request? The FOI saga is constructed by the denialist lobby. Do you know how many hours were wasted serving these fake requests? Do you really know anything about it at all?
You want your science presented on a silver spoon with sugar on top, or you deem it not valid science. What URL, what data? Your making no sense
@garlicbreds Sorry, you just stepped in it again. Scientists who are actually interested in transparency and education do not call people "denialists". Many of my grandfather's generation used "Jew" as a transitive verb. Of course such usage is unacceptable today. "Denialist" is every bit as insulting, tarring questioners with the brush of "holocaust denial".
It ought to be easy enough to have a FAQ website with links to the raw data that people ask for, "denialist" or not.
@Skeptic121 Er good point ...ok , trust Al Gore ..enjoy loosing both legs your scrotum and whats left of you one remaining neuron ! Oh and we will tax your ass for the privilege .....US sucker !
@garlicbreds "When you exclude tree-rings and only use other proxies, the same result is found - that the last few decades are warmer than any period over the past 1300 years."
Nope, you're behind on your propaganda spew...
Gavin Schidt admitted that the stick only works for 350 years without the most questionable proxies.
@DanAtMnMajority Don't you realise that the scientists have thought about that one a few times allready? Study global dimming and pollution and what they have done to tree growth. The tree rings track the other proxy data sets very very well, all up until the last few decades. When Michael Mann then later wanted the graph to be a single line made up by all the various proxys, including tree rings, coral reefs and sediments, he cleaned up the graph by "hiding the decline" of one proxy set. OK??
@Shinimegami86 - they're the 'rat-race' - eating up resources as fast as possible, to no end and no goal. many of them don't even think they have souls or an afterlife - yet they find themselves important enough to justify their usage of resources here. how disguisting.
@trentspirit - i reckon lots of them do know better, they actually choose to spread lies tho. there's a cult of sorts that think they can use that 'you create your own reality' to claim that pollution etc will never cause problems, cause they can imagine that it doesn't cause problems. of course they get reminded that if that worked for them, they wouldn't need any industries / economies in the first place - and of course they ignore that too.
@AnonymousWhitePerson - yeah, the octopus. and? you'd save a lot of time if you downloaded facts, instead of trying to always think up ways to counter the truth with lies. what r u going to do, make The Godfather IV in protest.......i'm not impressed by anyone thinking they can occupy a human body and not live as they ought to here.
@AnonymousWhitePerson - odd remark, given i have again outlined how much your evil insidious point of views shared here are actually responsible for why the Earth and all the species on it, are accursed. by your kind of attitude. so what is the point of that 'exercise' - mmm great we learned that a few evil fucktards can indeed cause all other species and real-peoples lives to be turned into hell. and? we said that'd happen all along. 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'. pointless.
You do realise that Co2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere? (Up from 0.028% of the atmosphere the beginning of the Industrial Revolution circa 1760).
Co2 was 6 times more abundant during the Carboniferous period and 3 times more abundant during the Triassic period. It was 4.7 times more abundant in the Jurassic period. 500 million years ago Co2 was 20 times more prevalent than today.
"...adding in the REAL temps to HIDE THE DECLINE..."
So the REAL temperatures tell us there is NO decline? Am I the only person who noticed this part of the quote? :S
TurboDally 1 month ago
@TurboDally Have a look on the "woodfortrees" website. choose any data, (apart from GISS which is run by IPCC's Hansen). Hadcrut global is best. Then set to the last decade. 2001. If you open a fresh series for "linear trend ols" over the start date you will see it slopes down.
Over the past couple of lifetimes, the Sun has been overactive. We might see up to a couple of decades of cooling weather now. Arctic sea ice is back to normal. Sea levels are dropping. The mesosphere is collapsing etc.
m1aws 1 month ago
LOL You guys are assholes. This is beautiful!
flanksteak2 1 month ago
Governments are real good at fiddling the figures ... that is their first question on the application form ... can you fiddle?
daviddalbylive 1 month ago
Comment removed
msteiner90 1 month ago
no statitisically signifigant warming in over 15 years with record c02 emissions. This scam is totally debunked.
Dodger481 1 month ago
@Dodger481
The last decade was the warmest on record, yet you clowns claim there was no significant warming. Yes, the scam of global warming denialism HAS been totally debunked.
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV
45% more c02 than 10 years ago yet we do not see any more warming than we saw in 1998. More c02 should = higher temperatures if the theory is valid. Since see any increased warming you can logically deduce that c02 is not a strong driver of climate. Even Phil Jones of the CRU admits there has been no statistically signifigant warming. Scam Debunked!
Dodger481 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dodger481 So, then, what's the response to the video "TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future"?
msteiner90 1 month ago
@Dodger481
We most certainly are seeing more warming than we did in 1998, liar. The warmest year on record is not 1998. It's 2010.
And the fact that more CO2 means higher temperatures is not speculative. It's proven fact.
The scam has been debunked: the scam of denying global warming. But you just keep on scamming away with it anyway.
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV
That is only from 1 temperature data set while the other 9 disagree about 2010. If AGW was a real issue we would see clear record setting temperatures every year. WHat we see instead is no statistically warming in over 15 year with record c02 emissions. AGW DEBUNKED!
Dodger481 1 month ago
@Dodger481
Wrong as usual, denier. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true. There most certainly has been warming over the last 15 years. AGW DENIAL DEBUNKED!
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV
This isn't one fo the believer echo chambers, you have to address the real world factual situation. Global warming is a global bust, even the warmist phil jones admits there has been no statistically signifigant warming. Now that Kyoto has been wisely torpedoed by world leaders we will have 8 years to see if any warming appears. I wouldn't bet money on it within cliamtegate scientists admit that this could just be a multi decadal phenomena.
Dodger481 1 month ago
@Dodger481
Repeating the lie about "no statistically significant warming" won't make it become true. Nor will falsely attributing your lie to Phil Jones. There most certainly has been "statistically significant warming" over the last 15 years.
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV
Jones was asked on BBC if there was any statistically signifigant warming. He said NO! Not that it matters as anyone can download the data and plot it in a spreadsheet themselves to see. The fact of the matter is that more c02 does not neccesarily mean higher average temperatures. Clearly the many other factors that make up cliamte dwarf the relevance of C02. On this there is no disagreement. Global warming related to co2 emissions is just not that important. Watch the Video!
Dodger481 1 month ago
@RedXlV The past decade has seen global cooling. The sea's are now dropping and the Arctic has no further statistical losses of ice.
They don't refute that now so they are scrambling to look for mitigations that show a computer modelled rise underlying the drop in the real world.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws
All of those claims are false, naturally. But since you're a global warming denier, you don't care about facts. You'll just repeat the lie and hope that makes people believe it.
In the real world, the last decade has been the hottest on record. The hottest year on record so far is 2010. Yet somehow you expect people to buy your nonsense about global cooling?
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV You are in denial. Go onto the "woodfortrees" website and check out this last decade.. It's irrefutable. I believe in global warming (and cooling). Its perfectly natural.
2/3's of the Earths existence saw 2000ppm CO2. It's been dropping for 70M years. We have returned a tiny part of this carbon cycle. 2010 was actually a tie, a weather glitch that 2011 made up for. Deniers use weather glitches lol.
Merry Xmas x
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws
For far more than 2/3 of Earth's existence, the climate would not have allowed human beings to survive. And the current warming is not part of a natural cycle. And about the "global cooling" lie:
watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV Oh right! Is this the "AGW will make animals small" theory recently postulated?
Last I heard those conditions made creatures up to 70' tall.
1C in 100 years? It's been one of the most stable in the memory of man!!!!!
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws
What the hell kind of made-up theory are you talking about?
It's indisputable that for most of Earth's history, it would've been unable to support human life.
RedXlV 1 month ago
@RedXlV You are snatching at straws if you are referring to the very early Earth before higher order life forms. Through irrelevance, I do not.
m1aws 1 month ago
@RedXlV
Two can play the name-calling game.
You are obviously a Global COOLING Denier since you refuse to believe the data.
The data (from all sources) proves it has been cooling since 1998.
Also;
-the seal level rise to 2100 predicted by real experts (not the IPCC) is between NOTHING and a maximum of 20cm; most likely is 10cm.
(Hardly frigthening, is it; just 4 inches.)
Go back to your false models, that is where you are happiest; with Jim Hansen/Al Gore and their catastrophic BS.
Besetho 3 weeks ago
There is no "decline" and there is no "Climategate"
Global warming deniers are universally stupid people.
RedXlV 2 months ago
@RedXlV you know that "hide the decline" is a direct quote, right?
Sp3ktator 1 month ago
@RedXlV
U must have been sleeping for 2+ years to make such an outrageous claim.
Dodger481 1 month ago
@Dodger481
No, it's just that unlike you, I'm not a moron.
RedXlV 1 month ago
is that my buddy Michael mann
al6952 3 months ago
The buddha taught that all suffering comes from ignorance. I hope the people who made this video keep it around for a long time, and watch it each year, and give it to their children.
apprenticejedi 4 months ago
Hockey stick - Mann made global warming
Get it? :-)
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
youre teeth look like shit
kiel108 5 months ago
HEY AL GORE WHORE IT'S THE FUKEN SUN U ASS
lushfauna 5 months ago
Jct: A beautiful exposure of the fraud that Michael Mann just got whitewashed. Kudos!
kingofthepaupers 5 months ago
What schmucks. Why don't you read the scientific paper? By "hiding the decline", what was meant is to merge the temperature estimates from tree ring formation, which is not reliable, to when accurate temperature data was actually available using scientific instruments. There was a divergence between the two in the 1960's or so, and that is hypothesized to be from drought. But the gullible ones who do not read the scientific papers think that there is something more sinister meant. Idiots!
friedie1jeff 5 months ago
@friedie1jeff What about the cooling in Antarctica? Average temperature has dropped -0.7c each decade, which has resulted in an increase of ~2.8 Gigatons of total antarctic ice coverage. GISS temperature data shows that, outside of the cities, global mean temperature has decreased since 1860. In fact, global temps dropped significantly from 1940-1970 when a majority of the CO2 of the 1990's was generated. Even worse, the upper atmosphere has seen no significant warming since 1979.
KellAnderson 5 months ago
@friedie1jeff
Jones: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
Mann: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
(So... pressure to prevent X from again publishing papers from certain people, yet they attack papers for not being published as if that proves something apolitcal?)
canofsand 4 months ago
@canofsand “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” - Mann
canofsand 4 months ago
Great video! Love seeing someone making fun of those lying scientists. They release false data thinking the rest of America is too dumb to notice. Now the only dumb ones are the people who still support any of these fools.
Bob80903 5 months ago
this video is full of derp
THEONLYmes323 5 months ago 2
good to see the eco cult is giving up on this con.
BruceH59 8 months ago
You guys are not worthy to scrape the dirt from the boots of a real contributor to humanity, the excellent scientist Dr Michael Mann. Learn to grow up and cope with the truth of overwhelming evidence. It's rather pathetic to watch such squirming.
topologyrob 9 months ago
@topologyrob
Wait you think Mann has contributed something to humanity? Well if it's ensuring that people know he's a fraud then yes I agree. Besides he doesn't hold anything to the contribution of humanity when you look at people like Norman Borlaug.
elilla331 8 months ago
@topologyrob LOLOLOLOLOLOL
(MICHEAL)MANN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM.
arkivx1 7 months ago
@topologyrob You really need to look at how Mann did his research
busguy100 6 months ago
@topologyrob Actually, the data shows exactly the opposite. There was warming for a couple of decades, but it had nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with Solar and Sub-Terranean Radiological cycles.
KellAnderson 5 months ago
@KellAnderson
There "was" warming? There still is, to this day. Despite abnormally low solar radiance. But you can't acknowledge that reality, can you?
RedXlV 2 months ago
I love this song, even tho' more science proof , I still like the original better, you just can't beat MM strutting
scienceismybag 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HIDE YOUR FUCKING TEETH
garethrogue 10 months ago
I swear I saw that tree on annoying orange.
izlude2 10 months ago
I hope someone puts spanish, german, italian, potugues, etc... subtitles to this very funny and ilustrative cartoons about the big lie about global warming.
acuaman42 11 months ago 2
Why anybody would expect tree rings to be a good proxy for temperatures I just don't know. There is just too many things that effect the growth rate of trees. Also with tree rings you can pick and choose which tree rings to use too easily. Wouldn't it be smart to just do more studies of past temps using more dependable proxies than tree rings. And please use good scientists from both sides of this issue to do the studies.
m8s4lif 11 months ago
@m8s4lif Maybe you should work out when you're treading outside your expertise - or do you go about and do your own dentistry, heart surgery and iPhone making?
topologyrob 9 months ago
@topologyrob At dentistry, heart surgery and iPhone making, I have no expertise. Timber is something that I do have some experience with.
m8s4lif 8 months ago
I love this video cheers me every single time I watch it. The Globull warming cult is exposed as A greedy fraud. LMAO
BruceH59 11 months ago
@BruceH59
Nope, the fraud is denial of global warming.
RedXlV 2 months ago
Great work!! FUNNY!!! You all need to do a video on 'The Danish Text'! It may be better than Climate-Gate?
21oPlato 1 year ago
does the maker of this video believe temperatures calculated from the tree ring data is more accurate than actually thermometers and other proxy data sets?
Aanthanur 1 year ago
Get yer teeth cleaned.
shoggie 1 year ago
That chicken was so random! And the tree will forever haunt me.
Yaveyta 1 year ago
I am not able to sign the petition because its only open to Americans :(
princessfiona94 1 year ago
The hide the decline email was written in 1999. How can he be talking about hiding a supposed cooling trend from 99 to 08? The tree rings say we have been cooling since 1961. Your own data contradicts that. By the way 2009 was the second warmest year on record.
doulos1981 1 year ago
This video is stupid. Tree-rings are not a very accurate way of recording temperatures! Many factors can cause a tree to grow differently. That is why they hid the tree ring data, they didn't match actually temperature data from real thermometers. You idiots just want climate change to be a fraud so you ignore context.
HOAXKiller1 1 year ago
@HOAXKiller1 Well why do you believe the hockey stick by Mann as his data is from tree rings?
busguy100 1 year ago
@busguy100 It's not from tree ring data, it's from actual thermometers. Even then, you don't even need temperature data to prove the greenhouse effect is real, and increasing CO2 is real, and those two facts combined will change the climate.
HOAXKiller1 1 year ago
@HOAXKiller1 No it's not, Mann used tree ring data from very few trees in a small area to make his "hockey stick". Because co2 increases, does not indicated that it drives temp, as in the past it has ALWAYS been a EFFECT of temp BOTH up and down by an average of 800 years
busguy100 1 year ago
@HOAXKiller1
Dude... you should change your name. This is not about whether or not the greenhouse effect is real; this is about CO2-driven anthropogenic climate change. This is about the qualitative and quantitative effects of increases in CO2 levels.
We know WHY they plugged Inst-data into the tree-ring set. Do you fail to understand how that is dishonest? ...and how that is NOT proper science?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@HOAXKiller1 You know, if that were so, they could have been honest and done another study - one with more trees.
If youre going to comment like that on a vid like this youre picking fights.
CO2 is the HOAXKiller here, not you :)
princessfiona94 1 year ago
I think people should let scientists do their job. People don't understand that their job is hard, and that people have expectations for them to always be correct. But if people think its so easy, they should try doing what scientists do.
crazymegamouth 1 year ago
Yeah there's climate change.
We call them 'seasons.'
Korruptor 1 year ago
Comment removed
fatkid1098 1 year ago
@fatkid1098 Yes, it would hurt greatly. Normal human activity is inconsequential compared to scale of the planet. To make policy based upon assumptions is nothing more than fear-mongering.
The climate will fluctuate regardless of what we do.
drdst17 1 year ago
@fatkid1098 It won't matter a bit. Now, ask yourself: where is the most polution? In american plants with their waste management system and - just as an example - drving more and more hybrids or in - let's say - india; with 20 year old cars, homes with no sewers etc...
manoman0 1 year ago
@fatkid1098 ...and , by the way, climate always changes, always, non-stop, and it does that since millions of years. now, why would climate change in 2010 be significant for the future?
manoman0 1 year ago
The thing that's really bugging me is this: I can't quite figure out what song they based this on. I feel like I heard it in the 70's
S0MEYAH00 1 year ago
@S0MEYAH00 did you ever figure it out? i'm still wondering :(
izlude2 10 months ago
@izlude2 yes its a song called Draggin the Line by Tommy James
S0MEYAH00 10 months ago
"Hide the decline" Where "decline" means "The decline in correlation between tree ring data (which shows a cooling global temperature) and actual temperature readings (which shows a warming global temperature." It's a method in science and data analysis to include outlying data to reduce noise while not screwing up the actual data.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
No. No. No. Where on earth did you find that explanation? It's not correct.
"Decline" refers to a downward slope. The word you're thinking of is DIVERGENCE.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns When they say decline, they're not talking about the divergence from the two data sets directly, but implicitly.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns "The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998)." from "Trees tell of past climates: but are they
speaking less clearly today?" (IM me for link to citation if you want.)
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
No. I don't need citation. You have your facts in order. The point of contention is the word “decline”. I maintain that decline has always referred to a slope, and that while the email pertains to the divergence problem, the word “decline” refers to the downward slope in Briffa's latewood set which illustrates the divergence problem.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns It refers to both a slope and a divergence, because that's what's happening. Temperatures reconstructed from the Tree ring data are dropping, while the /actual/ data recorded is going up at an average rate. The mechanism for this isn't exactly known, but scientists expect that the rise in temperature from the 1800s to the 1950s was enough to upset trees such that the correct reconstruction algorithm has changed. Thus we need a 'trick' to correct for it.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
By what standard does one judge the accuracy of the Temp-Recons prior to the introduction of instrumental data?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns By how closely they match actual, directly measured temperature data. There are a number of statistical ways to do it. One is to simply subtract one graph from another to get a linear divergence.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
So, in that case, wouldn't plugging instrumental data into the latewood set qualify as a methodological "no-no"?
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
@gunsandbullhorns Not really. While the trees data might be declining in temperature, the data can still be used to reduce noise in the big-picture. Astronomers (I am one) often use this technique. They take very bright, good pictures of galaxies and very dim or unfocused pictures of galaxies, 'normalize' them, and use it to reduce the overall fuzziness of the final picture. They even use a method called Deconvolution which is sort of a "trick" to mathematically focus data even after it's taken.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 and you can use this to make a potato that looks like Richard Nixon'shead, write his biography ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 ....What?
No, for that I'd use a paring knife and some magical runes.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
right. And yet for treemometers we have a "go", but not for potato-recorded political history,
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 others usggest i means a decline i data quality...also does not hold water.
There is no decline in quality of data..no mistake or problem with it other than that it does not do what would be so nice for them if it did.
They said hide the decline. It didn;t make a nice picutre of temps rising.
That was pretty explicit. The picture to be used to "seal the deal" was not coherent, with it showing.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 You're right, it doesn't refer to a decline in quality of data. It refers of a decline in temperatures extrapolated from trees for current temperatures. For a not completely understood reason, the tree data shows an overall declining temperature, but ACTUAL DIRECT readings show an increase. They're using the tree ring data to decrease the noise in the overall big picture because the tree ring data still sees relative increase and decreases. They're using the data to be more precise.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
I'm afrais that you have it not quite right.
The tree rings are the basis, they ARE the multiproxy paleochronologies.
They are NOt using tree rings to decrease noise.
Where did you find that gem ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 I can say it many ways. 'decrease noise' is one simple way. Maybe a more accurate one is 'to find a more accurate data' is another. or how about 'analyzing data to make better sense of trends'? Either way my point is that they have data; and in science there's hardly ever a reason to throw out data.
That being said, I'm not really sure what your objection to my statements is. There's tree ring data, and it declines while the rest of the temp data goes up. What's the issue?
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 "Either way my point is that they have data; and in science there's hardly ever a reason to throw out data."
so what did they do ? they threw out the data that did not say what they wanted to hear.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 No, they didn't. They used mike's nature trick to incorporate the tree ring data; and for your response above:
They take trees from all over the world and combine the data from year round to get a global average temperature. They use statistical analysis to combine the temperatures.
No, the proxies don't always match local temperatures, but they aren't meant to. We're looking at a global average, not your local on the 8's.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@jpsousa4
1/ They DO NOT take trees from everywhere.
2/ warming is not even...an equatorial zone will not show what a northern polare region shows. This is very very basic basic understanding that you have wrong.
So you are saying there is ZERO attempt to get proxies that have a correlation of local temp changes to local tree growth patterns. Serop need for correlation between local proxy and local temp changes.
Or for that matter, same for any proxy.
is that so ? hehe.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 It doesn;t matter what "neutral' showing proxies, or what proxies are used as stuffing...so long as they cancel in some spots ( MWP LIA) and what produces the hockey stick is a very very select few trees from questionable proxies...without the few suspect proxies, there is no thousand year hockey stick. NADA. Gone. Poof.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 I'd like to see this for my own eyes. Where did you find that adding in "one or two questionable proxies" makes a hockey stick?
Also, if tree ring data is /decreasing/ today while real temps are increasing, and if tree ring data approximately follows other data for temperature before the 1800s, why would it make a hockey stick?
jpsousa4 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 "if tree ring data is /decreasing/ today while real temps are increasing, and if tree ring data approximately follows other data for temperature before the 1800s, why would it make a hockey stick?"
there are two answers 1/ of course, the post 1961 downward sloping data was deleted. How can you forget that so soon ?
Do we need to discuss again that the downward slope was deleted ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
there are two parts to making a hockey stick.
1/ you need something to hammer down MWP and lift LIA to make the handle flat for a thousand years...or there is no claim of "unprecedented" ( if it goes up- higher than "now")
As well you need a blade goin up,you need a high sigma spike proxy. If you don't have the blade, you can't say anything about what happened previously..
S it needs both And it can't be done clean,. the most that can be verifiably done is 350 years backcast.
ouch.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
If the hockey stick does not have both flat handle and a blade, then the CO2/temperature relationship is muddled..and nothing can be said, once again.
This is an important point..and why the elimination of LIA has been of some import. LIA - even though it's not a hot period, it can also help sink the proposition of CO2/ temperature linear relationship
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@jpsousa4 so this temperature data to be had from a siberian tree...is it to match known temperature changes in Siberia, or known changes in Hawiaii ?
do the proxies match local temperatures ?
hahaha...figure it out, dude !
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 continuing: In other words, if the entire global average temperature is 1 degree higher than it was. Then both Siberia and Hawaii on average will be one degree warmer through the year. This is actually panning out, because we've been seeing "Meh" low temperatures where it's cold (with plenty of snow because a warmer atmosphere can absorb more water), and more and more record breaking highs year after year in many places where it's warm.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
Pointy, so what he's saying is that my tree in Siberia will grow according to a relation to global average temp, regardless of if temp rose or dropped where the tree is growing.
so if temps decrease in Siberia for one year, but increase in other areas, the tree will reflect temps from the other areas, instead of from where it is growing.
hehehe. good one. the craziness gets better and better.
Why use temps relating to the Amazon when the tree grew in Siberia ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Pointy, why do you suppose they hunt for select trees suffering stress due to local climate ?
So that they get a signal reflecting temp. LOCAL temp. Now why would they not compare local tree growth to local conditions ?
Answer : farce.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
garethrogue 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is garbage, why did I click on this crap? Minnesota is a white trash shit hole.
Slidingby 1 year ago
@Slidingby Aww, the Warmist moron can't refute the facts, so of course he goes to ad hominem for help. LOL.
best1089 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garlicbreds You made some good points, but I think you miss the overall point. I'll address each one.
1. Thanks for noting the tree-ring proxies do diverge, unlike Mann et. al. At least you are willing to acknowledge there are issues with the data and they were trying to hide the divergence by mixing their datasets. It's this behaviour of Mann and others that I found most objectionable.
(cont.)
nazlfrag 1 year ago
I like the original version best!
jorazpup1 1 year ago
"hide the increase #98739"
aerobique 1 year ago
global warming was invented to pass cap and trade so a bunch of already rich fat pigs could get richer much richer the scientists involved should be ashamed of there involvement and should be criminaly prosecuted
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000 What a load of paraoid drivelt.
Global warming was first proposed in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who very accurately calculated the predicted temperature at different atmospheric CO2 levels.
You people are incredibly ignorant
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildcrazygoats talking about man made warming dumb ass
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@wildcrazygoats the earth warms then the earth cools duh get a life you gov. bastard
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000 WOW - dont they do science in Oregon high schools ? Or are you seriously that ignorant
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
@wildcrazygoats even if there was global warming man made that is no one will accept it as long as all these corrupt gov. officials and billionairs are trying to push it for a thirteen trillion dollar a year industry in which they have all bought into duh dont cut off your nose to spite your face crazygoat. by the way i actually own goats
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000 Oh really because the greenhouse effect and global warming were discovered in 1824. You think there is 100+ year old people finally getting their way? LOL! idiots.
HOAXKiller1 1 year ago
Great video, but that tree will haunt my nightmares for weeks. o.o
flippityflop 1 year ago
Are you connected to the RatherGood folks? Noticed some similarities in style.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
It's all really about DEpopulation, never be distracted, doesn't it make more sense now?
lushfauna 1 year ago
There was a blizzard just a couple of days ago, in Alberta, Canada.
I also, can't help thinking that the HAARP antennas in Alaska, & other countries, say, n Norway, etc.- have a lot to do with the times the atmosphere heats up.
EarthaKit2 1 year ago
July 16, 2010 Portland/Vancouver projected lows for the next five days are 50°F. Highs in the low 70s. We haven't had a warm Summer night yet, this year.
onefodderunit 1 year ago
AL Bore but but but I am not going to be a Billionaire of the CON of Globull warming?
Sorry Al your HOAX is exposed you fruitcake alarmist fear mongers lying to the public is over go find another woman to molested.
BruceH59 1 year ago
nice teeth
911truthfarmer 1 year ago
@911truthfarmer
Nice ill breeding. Parent(s) too busy?
onefodderunit 1 year ago
stfu nerd!
critbonez 1 year ago
Jct: Thank god for you guys keeping the issue how while academe tries to find ways to alibi their intellectual crimes. Loved the way they focus on the true crime: "hide the decline."
kingofthepaupers 1 year ago
Completely stupid video. Are you goddamned toddlers?
erikspen 1 year ago
perhaps with the money if might make with this video, he can get his teeth fixed..
H8ISGR8 1 year ago
To NOT hide the decline would be the REAL controversy. Do you really want known bad tree ring data influencing the temp graphs? Of course not!
Please explain to me how including this data yields a more accurate temperature graph.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Silly wabbit. Don't you realize that the fact the tree ring data did not match observed temperature trends casts the entire paleoclimate model constructed on that data set into doubt? Mann used two data sets for his chart without acknowleding the divergance or that he tacked on a different data set to make his research look like it was in the realm of observable reality.
DanAtMnMajority 1 year ago 13
@DanAtMnMajority Tree ring divergence is not something new - its been well known for quite some time. I dont believe it "casts the entire paleoclimate model constructed on that data set into doubt". You do not need tree ring data to make a hockey stick - you can use ice cores, corals, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites... all give the same result.
More to the point - if Mann's work was dodgey, then how is it that 3 independant investigations have failed to find fault?
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@DanAtMnMajority ... But thanks for your intelligent & articulate response ... thats unusual here!
More:
1.Divergence doesn't occur with all tree-ring proxies but mostly in higher latitude sites with low latitude sites showing less or no divergence
2.When you compare high latitude tree-ring proxies that show divergence to the low latitude tree-ring proxies that have no divergence, the two track each other back to the MWP. This shows the divergence problem is unique to recent decades.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@DanAtMnMajority
3. When you exclude tree-rings and only use other proxies, the same result is found - that the last few decades are warmer than any period over the past 1300 years.
I think that amongst non-experts, the really important point is that the recent investigations have found no fault with Mann's work.
I find it laughable that some people here - who cannot even compose a sentence properly - believe that they are capable of debating the science intelligently. Thats arrogance!
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Deciding who to trust is part of life; we cannot be an expert at everything. Let's say I have cancer. Ivy League Doc says I need horribly disfiguring surgery. Cow College Doc says no, just a minor operation and some chemo has as good prognosis as anything. Dilemma!
I ask some questions and Ivy League Doc is arrogant and resentful. Cow College Doc is welcomes questions and explains everything. I ditch Ivy League Doc immediately.
Those e-mails disqualified your side. Sorry.
Skeptic121 1 year ago 19
@Skeptic121 Exactly! - we must trust our experts. To not do so is pretty arrogant.
Now tell me exactly what you dont like about 'those emails' - or have you believed the 'very trustworthy' fellows at wattsupwiththat & their incredible lies, who are not experts, and have been publishing the most outrageous crap Ive ever seen.
What about the many experts who officially investigated the emails - did they find anything that causes alarm? No they didnt.
So take your own advice please.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds We must often decide WHICH experts to trust. We often receive very different medical advice from different doctors. There are experts on BOTH SIDES of the global warming debate. I tend to trust the experts who are willing to explain their reasoning to laymen honestly, without arrogance and condescension. The infamous e-mails fail the test. "Why should I help you..." is nothing if not arrogant and condescending. A URL for the data would have won me over, but too late now.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121 Im not sure who told you "Why should I help you.." - ive never experienced that personally - or are you talking about the denial of freedom of information (FOI) request? The FOI saga is constructed by the denialist lobby. Do you know how many hours were wasted serving these fake requests? Do you really know anything about it at all?
You want your science presented on a silver spoon with sugar on top, or you deem it not valid science. What URL, what data? Your making no sense
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Sorry, you just stepped in it again. Scientists who are actually interested in transparency and education do not call people "denialists". Many of my grandfather's generation used "Jew" as a transitive verb. Of course such usage is unacceptable today. "Denialist" is every bit as insulting, tarring questioners with the brush of "holocaust denial".
It ought to be easy enough to have a FAQ website with links to the raw data that people ask for, "denialist" or not.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garlicbreds Sorry, but you know exactly where that infamous phrase comes from; it has gone viral.
Phil Jones e-mailed Warwich Hughes "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Note that Jones did not write "It's too much work" as you seem to imply.
He objected to the desire to "find something wrong with it."
Well, that was the scientific process when I went to school.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121 Er good point ...ok , trust Al Gore ..enjoy loosing both legs your scrotum and whats left of you one remaining neuron ! Oh and we will tax your ass for the privilege .....US sucker !
klnine 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@garlicbreds "When you exclude tree-rings and only use other proxies, the same result is found - that the last few decades are warmer than any period over the past 1300 years."
Nope, you're behind on your propaganda spew...
Gavin Schidt admitted that the stick only works for 350 years without the most questionable proxies.
Get to know yer facts, bud !
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@DanAtMnMajority Don't you realise that the scientists have thought about that one a few times allready? Study global dimming and pollution and what they have done to tree growth. The tree rings track the other proxy data sets very very well, all up until the last few decades. When Michael Mann then later wanted the graph to be a single line made up by all the various proxys, including tree rings, coral reefs and sediments, he cleaned up the graph by "hiding the decline" of one proxy set. OK??
AmbientSmiley 1 year ago
Comment removed
nazlfrag 1 year ago
More right wing propaganda.
DigitalAquarius 1 year ago
@DigitalAquarius More Warmist deflections and attacks.
Keep trying, you low greenie idiot. LOL.
best1089 1 year ago
Nice fat buffoon with yellow teeth!
trentspirit 1 year ago
EXELLENT video!!!!! EXCELLENT!
realscience1 1 year ago
@Shinimegami86 - they're the 'rat-race' - eating up resources as fast as possible, to no end and no goal. many of them don't even think they have souls or an afterlife - yet they find themselves important enough to justify their usage of resources here. how disguisting.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
Comment removed
trentspirit 1 year ago
@trentspirit - i reckon lots of them do know better, they actually choose to spread lies tho. there's a cult of sorts that think they can use that 'you create your own reality' to claim that pollution etc will never cause problems, cause they can imagine that it doesn't cause problems. of course they get reminded that if that worked for them, they wouldn't need any industries / economies in the first place - and of course they ignore that too.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
Your last comment gave me an uproarious belly-fart from my sternum down to my coccyx.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
The Club of Rome.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson - yeah, the octopus. and? you'd save a lot of time if you downloaded facts, instead of trying to always think up ways to counter the truth with lies. what r u going to do, make The Godfather IV in protest.......i'm not impressed by anyone thinking they can occupy a human body and not live as they ought to here.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
@randomlaughingman,
You are an accursed rapscallion.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson - odd remark, given i have again outlined how much your evil insidious point of views shared here are actually responsible for why the Earth and all the species on it, are accursed. by your kind of attitude. so what is the point of that 'exercise' - mmm great we learned that a few evil fucktards can indeed cause all other species and real-peoples lives to be turned into hell. and? we said that'd happen all along. 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'. pointless.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excess Co2?
You do realise that Co2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere? (Up from 0.028% of the atmosphere the beginning of the Industrial Revolution circa 1760).
Co2 was 6 times more abundant during the Carboniferous period and 3 times more abundant during the Triassic period. It was 4.7 times more abundant in the Jurassic period. 500 million years ago Co2 was 20 times more prevalent than today.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago 3
Anyway, Co2 Fertilizes Plants.
It is consumed by plants; the Carbon is stored as sugar and the Oxygen is release back into the atmosphere.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago