After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted – an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (95% confidence) that we are all being totally screwed.
@1000frolly Do you have any evidence of your claims? Like I told you before, its the flying spaghetti monster that is causing global warming. See, I can make stupid unproven claim too. Im cool just like you.
The best explanation of how we lost science to politics is by Professor Ray Hilborn at the U of Wash, my alma mater, "Re-interpreting the Fisheries Crisis" on line at UW TV.
Peer review does not work if you can get another liberal professor to review before publishing.
Species after species of fish is on the threshold of extinction, and then the harvest doubles every year for 10 years.
It is just like global warming.
Some gloom and doom from some liberal is spitting in the face of science.
Imagine for a moment people who want to use the government to control our lives acknowledge the proven science and are racing to use it as an excuse to impose horrible policy that won't solve the problem, but actually make it worse.
Imagine your denial keeps your valid points about government control silent, because your refusal to acknowledge the science mutes everything else you say.
Idiots such as yourself actually stand in the way of free market solutions as much as the Marxists.
I did an informal analysis of political contributions by climate scientists based on the FEC (Federal Election Commission) data base. I found 20 or so contributions in excess of $200 by people who were likely climate scientists and 100% gave to democrats or Ralph Nader. I found a similar result looking at contributions by American IPCC contributing scientists where everyone who gave was giving to democrats except for a couple of known skeptics.
it's well known that most scientists lean democratic - since the republican party decided that science is a matter of opinion, the earth is 5000 years old, there is no climate change
One of the old black professors that substitute for Rush said that the ratio is 20 to 1 if the arbitrator of truth is aesthetics, and 5 to 1 if it can be verified in the lab.
I think many right wing scientists are closeted.
And as they say, "Apply for a grant to study the nut gather of squirrels, no funds. Apply for a grant to study the effect of global warming on the nut gathering of squirrels, application approved."
I think if we put every public figure warmer in prison....
@mphello Your language is a little to strong to advance the discussion. But I like your statement about communism and anti-environmentalism. Communist governments tend to be very anti-environment. Good point I am going to steal your argument to use for myself LOL. Well done, never thought of it like that. But you should really relax your rhetoric a little, it goes to far.
Typtical ad hominem nonsense.. deny, claim they were 'out of context'... Face it.. you guys got caught with your pants down. Oh yeah 'Trick' it was just taken out of context. How about the part where they clearly tried to manipulate the peer review process, suppress contradictory evidence.
@chronDiggity Yes.. heard the rationalization before. It's all sophistry. They were cherry picking and the plain language in the end doesn't lie. They were making the data fit a pre-conceived outcome. Some call it 'observation bias' if they're kind. I call it fraud. And there's far more damning emails than the 'hide the decline' one. I've read the emails - I'm sure you haven't.
The only rationalization is yours where you rationalize taking a quote completely out of context and running with it, never actually listening to an explanation.
Deniers are the WORST at looking for data that fits their "preconceived outcome." You seriously want to talk about bias? How about how you deniers propped someone like Richard Muller up as a hero until he could no longer deny the proven science, now suddenly he's a shill.
@chronDiggity Your talking points.. "blah blah Out of context... blah blah.. out of context"
The Null Hypothesis IS the outcome until proven otherwise. You're free to make wild assertions about my concern for the truth... clearly you enjoy taking wild, unfounded assertions and elevating them to truth. We don't need data to prove a preconceived outcome - you do. You're the one supporting outlandish claims. You're the one supporting a radical agenda.
Telling someone all you heard from them was blah blah blah shows your contempt for truth. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming like a child.
Speaking of taking unfounded assertions and elevating them to truth, here you take a single quote taken out of context and use it to assert a scientifically proven fact is a hoax. You've used NO science, you've acknowledged nothing in the video, and now you're talking about radical agendas? What a wacko.
@chronDiggity No.. not contempt for the truth. Why would I have such a thing? why? It's contempt for your pathetic insistence that any damning evidence is "taken out of context"
AGW is NOT a proven scientific fact. It is a poorly supported theory based on models. Its proponents were caught fudging results, withholding data, and suppressing contradictory studies. It's clear to anyone who reads the emails. Anybody reading this thread should go to the climate depot site and see for themselves.
You still haven't listened to this video. They WEREN'T fudging data. You're blatantly doing what you condemn others of doing.
BTW, AGW isn't what we're talking about. This whole controversy was just over whether the climate was warming, which is proven fact, NOT JUST if we were causing it. Do try and keep up, I'll grow tired of your straw man arguments quickly.
BTW An example of fudging data is deniers who present graphs cut off at 1980 and claim 1980 = now <That's your ilk
The global warming hoax is exposed, busted, and discredited.
But we individualists need eternal vigilance to guard against what ever next scam the subversive Marxist professors use to brain wash college students.
let's use some common sense, the earth is maybe 6bil years old and we have maybe a 100 years a hard data. Can we not realize that we are all speculating in the noise? Climate change dose however have an political agenda. Just a thought
@bannor99 Don't forget the magic crucifix to ward off the heathens. Some of them actually have crucifix shaped shotguns with silver shot and garlic in them. It never hurts to be safe! Any day the vampire werewolf zombie apocalypse might come and you'll be sorry you didn't arm yourself (in best Ice Age dodo voice) Oh yeah and don't forget a wooden stake to drive through Al Gore's heart, he's *really* scary. You can tell because the anti-science types still talk about him all the time.
thank you for posting this. i learned a lot from it but wish those who deny would view it--with an open mind; the deniers i know have little or no education in science nor any desire to learn but think they know anyway. none so blind....
As bad as that sounds (even though it's horse shit) it's still not as bad as pretending to something your not. A burger flipper by day, a computer superhero scientist by night...
I would like to see peer reviewed papers that support your claims. I could add don't show any Chris Monckton papers but they aren't peer reviewed so they wouldn't count.
Maybe I'm wrong about you, maybe you are just a shit kicker that works for an oil rigger company...
Just like everything was politicized with Christianity in the middle ages, and politicized with Marxism in Maoist China, the US is now being politicized with liberalism, and liberalism is now polluting science in the US.
Watch the video on University of Washington TV website called "Re-interpreting the Fisheries Crisis" and professor Hilborn explain how peer review got all these fraudulent alarmist papers published about fisheries.
Wow.... Someone doing Scientific method for a living didn't quite understand my request.
Post links to peer reviewed papers presenting evidence against a warming planet. The fisheries page shows (possibly, didn't look too in depth as it has nothing to do with climate change) that Scientists have made mistakes. We know this happens. Show me evidence buddy, or don't bother replying.
The world has a conservative agenda, it's tearing us apart.. See, I can talk shit too.
@tnekkc Cite the specific paper where the data is faked. You can't. What "secret" models? The models are available to anyone who wants to examine them. giss nasa gov/tools/modelE/ Source code tarballs and you can verify those models produce the same results as the published data which is also linked to from there.
@tnekkc "the last 11 years of declining temperatures" If that was true then wouldn't the oceans have stopped accumulating heat and wouldn't the polar regions have stopped losing ice, in the year 2000. Incase you're wondering, this hasn't happened. What you need to take into account is the heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere (El Nino and La Nina cycles). If you want to know more Skeptical Science dot com has alot of information on this issue.
@tnekkc 100 years of good data and you throw away 80% of it for no reason? How is your manipulation of data "better" than what you claim ? At least climate scientists publish their data and calculations, all we see from the anti-science crowd is claims on youtube. BTW you said the data was faked, so when you cherry pick a 20% segment from the very same data and claim that it definitively shows cooling, well, let's just say you look foolish at best.
you just revealed your only basis for denying proven science is that you don't want to look like a sucker.
I have a feeling you've been made a sucker in a big way in your life at least a few times, and now you're so skeptical of everything you would rather trust yourself about what's right with anything and everything anymore, except you aren't a climate scientist and probably don't understand half of what's presented to you. In that, it is you who is the sucker, to your own arrogance.
But when Muller was saying it was a hoax because the science was flawed, people like you propped him up as a hero.
When he decided to do the science himself, and found the planet IS warming and the debate is now strictly whether we're causing it, suddenly he's a shill.
Before you think Muller has no backbone, look at the supreme court in 2000, when all members flipped their states rights positions when it was convenient.
LOL! Oh, MARXISM. That explains it all. Who needs science to refute science when you can just throw that label around? BRILLIANT!
The fact is the solution this problem won't come from government intervention, and opposing government intervention doesn't require a complete denial of proven science.
In fact, what will solve it is LESS government. No taxes on the alternative fuels and energy efficiency market AT ALL, no horrible regulation that stifles innovation.
@tnekkc Yet you believe in imaginary things like "god".
There is infinitely more proof of aliens visiting earth than there is of "god" or that AGW is "false". You are also an anti-semite who blames Zionists and Jews for everything and an anti-porn anti-pot-choice terrorist.
@tnekkc who says "I do scientific method for a living" ? lol and its a property of CO2 to cause warming that cant be argued it has been known for a very long time and the development of heat seeking missiles lead to it being investigate more for its role in heating the planet. whether warming is overal positive or negative can be argued but in all we and the other organisms on the planet have adjusted to this climate and if we diverge to quickly its likely bad.
I thought that the Swedes calculated the contribution of CO2 to global warming, 110 years ago, and proved it was mathematically negligible.
Math means nothing to a pro global warming propagandist.
Watch the youtube video "The Global Warming Hoax!", and you will see professor Pieter Arend Folkens explain the history of the global warming hoax. It goes way back.
@tnekkc Things have changed we know of feed back loops, and we produce far more CO2, we have satelites that can see temperature differences over the whole surface of the earth, etc. we have known of the properties of CO2 for many years but we have not known all of the effects it has on a large system for that long and we are still figuring it out but the more we know the more it shows how little pushes can have large effects.
The problem is not global warming, the problem is liberals.
When the door slams in their face with racism, feminism, or environmentalism, they will be back with a new back door ism to push us in the collectivist direction.
@zapo147 Naw, he's not inane. Insanity implies a hapless individual afflicted by a mental illness. Willful ignorance and a denial of common sense and evidence is just that. Look at the anti-science types and what they talk about: anything but evidence. That's not a coincidence, that's the same technique that young earth creationists, astrologers and faith "healers" have used for centuries. Same shit different century.
@tnekkc If you're a scientist then I'm a flobberworm. Only non-scientists speak of absolute certainties. Why are you obsessed with Al Gore? He's not a climate scientist, he's never published a scientific paper but here you go citing a book he published a decade ago as "evidence" of some sort? So here's a question: in your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would scientists have to present to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
@tnekkc Can you not give us your own personal opinion? You know all this science, and you have all these other opinions, surely you must have some sort of response? In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would scientists have to present to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Do you not understand the question or do you choose not to give us your opinion on that?
@garudagal23 Hey nice to know GW chumps like you have such impressive credentials in science. Dr. Richard Lindzen is obviously lacking a high school diploma.
Confusing and conflating "key points" i.e. minor semantics did not closely makes Muller incorrect on the whole.
Greenman, why are you so bigoted as to call those who cannot believe in AGW because of the realities of otherwise as "anti-science"? The weight of proof against AGW is factual science.
Never forget, Muller will turn in the end. His income and the health of his grandchildren depend on what he says from now on. Listen to his statement to congress. It's not his sentence structure.
Marxism always fails at the polls, so the subversive professor Marxist devils try something else. .. feminism, environmentalism, anything but the ugliness they really are.. Marxism.
@tnekkc Oh! Don't forget minimum wage and the theory of evolution. Its all part of our secret left wing communist plot to control you, your family and all your freedoms. But it looks like you've discovered our sinister plan. Curses! Back to the old drawing board boys.
I suggest you put your tinfoil hat back on in the meantime.
Would you agree that Co2 is still rising at pretty much the same rate as it has been for at least the last few decades? I've read a few ascertions on warm friendly sites that it's acellerating in the last decade or so but haven't seen any data on it but would be more than happy to concede that point.
used to believe in AGW until I really started reading up on both sides of the issue.
Am completely disgusted by the rabid ad hominem attatcks from the AGW alarmists. Am a technical consultant specializing in ballistics so while not a climatoligist am intemately familiar with the scientific process, statistical analysis, and modeling. Skepticism is INTERGAL to science there is no science without it. Data manipulation, suppression of disenting work, cherry picking and lies are not science.
so, without rebutting any of the well documented facts in the video, you simply bloviate about your preconcieved, unsupported, paranoid talking points. You're making my case about the denialist mind.
GM- This response was to a different posting (and poster) that was full of name calling and ad-homonym attacks not to mention veiled threats of things that were going to happen to "deniers". I had several windows open an inadvertently pasted it to this video as apposed to it's intended destination. I do however stand by my assertions above. Having just re-read the Cimategate emails between Jones et all it's incontrovertible that they actively conspired to subvert the peer review process.
WOW having just actually watched your vid your presentationis a TEXTBOOK example of the kind of unproffessional disgusting behavior i was refering to. Name calling, character besmirchment, you run right down the globalist PoPD checklist and don't miss a beat. Hide the decline is not the issue. The criminal behavoir fo climate gate is the active suppression of desenting opinions by government funded scientist. The only problem is that Co2 is still dramatically rising but temps are flatlined..
cont... According to ALL AGW saints and the AGW God this must result in temperatures raising not just accordingly but rising in an ever increasing acceleration because of the positive feedback decread by the all knowing Gore-acle God of AGW. Unfortunately those pesky actual recorded temperatures just aren't cooperating as all the recorded records point out there has been no temperature increace in over a decade. The best thing of all is we have a TON of global warming horror predictions .....
cont.... some of which have allready proved to be BS others in the opcoming years that will be shown to be BS. It was real handy of your side to make so many diffinitive predicitons. Were's the 50 million "climate refugees" we were supposed to see by 2010 from low islands? How many thousands or even perhaps millions of famine deaths could we have avoided if we hadn't diverted 5% of the US corn production to ethonal? Your side should be thanking their lucky stars that Cap & Trade.....
cont...wasn't instituted. Could you imagine the blowback against AGW alarmist if the price of energy doubled (driving everything else up). How many people who are now just barely holding on in this economy would loose there homes. How many businesses on the brink could absorb a doubling of costs. Now imagine all those afflicted people by 2020 and there's still no catastrophic warming to justify the sacrifice or more like we procede from our current temp platue ......
cont...into another cyclical decline phase? Lucky people have cached all the alarmist claims and threats and they'll come back to bight you in the but. "when is it going to be OK to lynch a climate denier huh?" "crimes agianst humanity for econocide?" yeah that 's real responsible rehtoric now when people aren't too bad off." Better hope the skeptic comunity has a little more restraint when the economy crashes, the temps go down and people start wondering why we blew $1Trillion+ green fraud
Showing that a small amount of tree ring data was published in a paper, as a way of backing up a false claim that Jones and his associated hoaxers were open with their data. Conveniently, no mention of the fact that large amounts of original temperature measurement data were withheld by the hoaxers, and some data were lost or destroyed. And no mention of the fact that data sets were constructed by the hoaxers from results from measuring sites chosen for their warm bias.
"climate deniers" - not a good start. Accusing people who are justifiably skeptical of consensus style "climate science" of being anti science - no better. Praising Michael Mann's long exposed hoax hockey stick graph - same. No medieval warm period in that graph, contrary to well documented worldwide reality. No mention of the lack of warming of the planet for over 10 years, or of recent significant cooling, or any of the real science behind the hoax. And that annoying percussive junk music.
So, just letting you know: I've done more hardcore mathematical modelling and deeper thinking throughout my life about scientific principles than you could even possibly imagine.
So, now we COULD say humans are NOT causing current GW with all their GHG emissions from a fundamental . But, then mathematical modelling and logical consistency would force you to conclude that nobody ever died in acts of terrorist bombings. (i.e. Terrorists bombings were not the CAUSE of Israelis' deaths by Palestinians.)
Doesn't matter how "unrelated" you think those events are to GW. The mathematical FACT is that logical consistency would demand it.
Yes - I mathematicallly model ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Math does not give a FUCK that you put such-and-such event into THIS category (AGW) and such-and-such event into THAT category (OJ Simpson, bombings in Palestine). ONLY mathematical models and logistical models can LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY determine CAUSE AND EFFECT in ALL cases ONCE you define your axioms from first quantum mechanical principles.
Until then, EVERYTHING is just sets of atoms moving around.
Now, since the laws of logic and cause and effect are universal, what I just said in my previous post must be true for QUADRILLIONS of atoms, say, like O J Simpson. Blood stains, victims' bodies, etc. NONE of that PROVES he CAUSED their deaths. It could prove he heroically fought off the real killers and got cut in the process and was too late. But, some arbitrary LEGAL definition says "your DNA at scene implies you caused that event".
You ARE right: modelling does not prove causation. And, guess what? Neither does physical evidence.
Causation is actually a DEFINED thing. Start with quantum mechanics. One atom approaches another. Instantaneously, by coulomb forces, the second atom moves. How do you define which "causes" which to move?
But modelling CAN reveal all logical inconsistencies in how those definitions of causation are applied.
Now, since the laws of logic and cause and effect are universal, what I just said in my previous post must be true for QUADRILLIONS of atoms, say, like O J Simpson. Blood stains, victims' bodies, etc. NONE of that PROVES he CAUSED their deaths. It could prove he heroically fought off the real killers and got cut in the process and was too late. But, some arbitrary LEGAL definition says "your DNA at scene implies you caused that event".
at 14:20 you see Dr. Muller testifying before congress but his lips dont match the words being spoken (supposedly DR. Muller). if the maker of this film can get the clip of him testifying before congress why doesnt he have the appropriate sound byte? rewind to 13:00 and listen to the REAL Dr. Muller and then listen to 14:20 again....its not the same voice. that could be ANYBODY saying that. mabey even Doyle Rice
Why don't you go to the Wattsupwiththat website and get your proof there that you're listening to the REAL Dr. Muller in greenman3610's video? Since his publication the climate denier community is tearing him into parts, including personal threats. That's the way right-wing deniers do their "work". When the real science doesn't add up with their preconceptions they're turning violent.
@TheMrSirCharles the London riots (and im talking about the last three years not just this recent one) have all been by left wing anarchists socialists and "green" hippy types. so far the death toll is 14. death toll of the american TEA party movement in the same time 0. which side is more violent? the facts dont match with your assertion
Have you been at Wattsupwiththat? Do you retract from your allegation of a fake in greenman3610's video?
The "London riots" have possibly been carried out by anarchists, but definitely not by any political group, particularly not "green hippies". Some of them were even racist.
Fortunately Gabrielle Giffords didn't die after getting shot. And we don't talk about about Anders Behring Breivik now...
Get real. greenman3610's video isn't based on fakes, it is based on gospel truth.
@TheMrSirCharles the bloke who shot Gabby Giffords was a socialist. so that makes him left wing. and Anders Behring Breivik is a "green" activist. he thinks the world is over populated. thanks for two more examples of leftwing violent behavior
@TheMrSirCharles the more i hear of this Anders Behring Breivik feller the more i start to like him. he makes some good sense ya know what i mean? AND he has leadership skills. ah hell our mission is as clear as mud boys. an ah mean to execute without deviation. YOU CALLING ME A DEVIANT BOY? WHAAAAAHOOOOOO...FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!!....ahem...sorry i stole that last bit from grand theft auto IV.
We need to have more Breiviks who are willing to bomb and blow up coal plans and factory farms where billions of animals are needlessly bred and murdered. And to kill anti-socialists who keep stealing from the poor and giving to rich lazy bankers.
For FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! Nobody who eats meat gives a shit about freedom. The TRILLIONS of animals murdered just because sick twisted deviants won't go vegan have NO comprehension of what the loss of freedom means.
if you pause the video at 13:26 you can read in the NON highlighted areas "there arent monetary strings attatched if the programe were terminated tomorrow nobody loses jobs, no large government programs shut down and no DEPENDANT programs shut down either...what is a "dependant program"? its clear that AGW is solely a money making scam with trillions of dollars at stake being taken from the working class and given to an elite few in the scientific class.
the narrator of this Propaganda peice sounds like a typical liberal. smug dismisive arrogant. lets play a game GOOGLE "seven forms of propaganda" and lets see how many forms the narrator uses. and how many forms the people he is trying to discredit uses. BTW the narators name is Doyle Rice he lives in Canada
first off Micheal Manns hockey stick graph has already been PROVEN to be wrong. and this video substantiates it. it says he superimposed earlier data over the years for data he didnt have (mirror image) from 1980-1998. well if it colder from 1958 to 1976 the inverse (mirror image) will show dramatic warming because you will get warming that happened naturally from 76 onward plus inverted cooling (warming in manns graph)
@greenman3610 ahh yes here it comes. typical leftwing tactic discredit the messenger. what meds do you think im off? and be specific this is for science
@greenman3610 two anti psychotics and an alzheimers medication...cmon you can do better than that. i was hoping you would be honest. but i should of known better. dare to dream
@KamiKagutsuchi have you seen what the graph looks like when you use the REAL temperatures and not the proxy tree ring temps?.....hence "hide the decline" the real temps are lower by far than then the proxy temps and almost as low as they were in 1973. but that didnt correspond to ANTHROPOGENIC global warming theory which states temps go up up up as co2 emmisions go up...but the fact is world temps dropped not raised as co2 rose.
@amyhuk dear oh dear. You dont get it at all do you. It is the other way round. It is the real observed temperatures that have gone up. The proxy tree ring data is showing divergence (decline) from the observed data and this could be for a multitude of reasons. This would obviously be a concern for our historical records if it werent for the fact that other proxy data still show the expected upward trend.
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...
@greenman3610 no anthropogenic global warming is an embarasment to all involved. notice how funding for it is dropping off exponentially? and how progressive and marxist candidates arent getting elected anymore? and the ones who managed to squeek by during the last election cycle are biting their nails and actually WORKING with Republicans and the TEA party now so they wont get booted out. you had your chance and you FAILED.
The climategate emails really are an "Inconvenient Truth" to the carbon tax lackeys. To see the mind of one of the main global warming nutjobs on youtube, look at my comments page from MPhello and go to encyclopedia dramatica and read up on Clara Massa. The face of global warming = nutjob
@HerecomestheGrump I'd hardly call "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" as a source, it's kinda their thing to say crazy shit, dontchathink? Not only that, but attacking a person who you disagree with only hurts your own postion. Maybe arguing facts would be better than personally attacking someone. ;)
Problem with your video is that instead of assessing Muller's accusations you go on a rampage over a quote, which would only be relevant if he didn't explain the trick exactly as mentioned in the email. The problem isn't the quote, the problem is the decline that was hidden, giving certainty to a study where none was justified. And sure, the divergence problem was known but only to a very specialized circle. In more general papers such as the WMO ones, they always "hid" the decline.
@LuisManuelLealDias Glad to see there is another thinker on this forum. I find global warming proponents make the same mistake as skeptics, they reach a conclusion based upon insignificant data. Most of the people making such claims are not scientists, but like to think the are smart.
Climategate was legitimate lie on the part of scientists, my colleagues, and it should be an embarassment to the profession. In addition, it should make people question the data and start over on the climate issue
The real data from the NOAA as of today looks completely different that the hockey stick trick. Look at the graph now that real data has been collected, and you will see how wrong the "hockey stick" is.
Any time a "scientist" claims to be using a "trick", said "scientist" has deviated from the scientific method in a very dangerous way. That is the only reason I call bull on this apparent indoctrination of "science".
@kyle92223 Good point. Science requires evidence and data, not "tricks" or methods used to alter and observation. Theories need to fit data, not the other way around. So much politics has infiltrated climate research that there are now very few scientists who can be trusted not to manipulate their findings. It is most unfortuate, but I think we have to start from scratch on the whole issue.
Your video is anything by even-handed. It is filled with biased rhetoric, sensationalism, and misdirection, all the same things you accuse Fox News of. You see, you are no different them. You're a cherry-picking, sensationalist. You'd do just fine at Fox News or CNN or any other main stream media outlet that spins its information. You are the least reliable source of information on this topic.
Note that I am not saying climate change scientists have lied or that they have "tricked" anyone. What I am saying is the data they work with is incomplete. It isn't the whole picture and as such may or may not be accurate, we just don't know. I am only pointing out that drawing conclusions from the data, which could have widespread implications for society, needs to be undertaken carefully and not because you hate Fox News or the other guy hates CNN. Are you a scientist?
You sent me from another video as a claim that this somehow proves your stance on climate change. In truth, this has no evidence at all. It is just another one of your hack jobs involving rhetoric and name-calling, but no data. As I have said, I don't come down on either side of the debate because I do not find the evidence to be abundant enough to be conclusive. I think we should work hard to understand what is going on, but avoid jumping to conclusions.
@greenman3610 Wow, way to apply some hyperbole with your "me, and 98 percent of qualified scientists on the planet." Did you conduct a poll? Do you actually have access to that kind of data? Of course not, no one does. Just more evidence that you will say anything so long as it supports your dogma. You are just as bad as the religious, wanting so bad to believe that you will make up stories to delude yourself.
Icepac.US is an excellent site on which the GW debacle is put to rest.
Greg
gtopa1A 2 weeks ago
As Muller says; I don't give a fig about "trick". I'm wondering at "what f'n decline?"
Greg
gtopa1A 3 weeks ago
@gtopa1A
as you can see, there is no f'n decline.
greenman3610 3 weeks ago
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted – an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (95% confidence) that we are all being totally screwed.
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1000frolly Do you have any evidence of your claims? Like I told you before, its the flying spaghetti monster that is causing global warming. See, I can make stupid unproven claim too. Im cool just like you.
thesparitan 18 hours ago
Excellent. Love this video!
KnightBiologist 1 month ago
@KnightBiologist
thanks. worked hard with the actual scientists involved to get it right.
greenman3610 1 month ago
The best explanation of how we lost science to politics is by Professor Ray Hilborn at the U of Wash, my alma mater, "Re-interpreting the Fisheries Crisis" on line at UW TV.
Peer review does not work if you can get another liberal professor to review before publishing.
Species after species of fish is on the threshold of extinction, and then the harvest doubles every year for 10 years.
It is just like global warming.
Some gloom and doom from some liberal is spitting in the face of science.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
right.
google
atlantic cod fisheries collapse
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
Google Hitler animal rights
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
translated: Having written something ridiculous, I'm desperate to change the subject.
greenman3610 1 month ago 5
@tnekkc Google Stalin and nationalism.
Google Battle of Leningrad Red Army versus Nazis
Conservatives hate science and are unpatriotic cowards
mphello 1 month ago
Global warming has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with Marxism.
Once you know that, it explains who is for it and who is against it.
Arguing the merits of global warming is silly.
Argue Marxism, and quit wasting time.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
Imagine for a moment people who want to use the government to control our lives acknowledge the proven science and are racing to use it as an excuse to impose horrible policy that won't solve the problem, but actually make it worse.
Imagine your denial keeps your valid points about government control silent, because your refusal to acknowledge the science mutes everything else you say.
Idiots such as yourself actually stand in the way of free market solutions as much as the Marxists.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@tnekkc
marxism makes it warmer?
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
Marxism wants to grow gov.
If regulating CO2 meant shrinking gov, all the libearals would be against it, and all the conservative for it.
Because it has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with promoting Marxism and fighting Marxism.
Go ahead. Try to find a conservative climatologist who believes in global warming.
Go ahead. Try to find a liberal climatologist who does not.
There are no exceptions.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
look up
richard alley
kerry emmanuel
registered republican climate scientists.
See Scott Denning's talk here -
watch?v=P-oXWUdoXX0
greenman3610 1 month ago
I did an informal analysis of political contributions by climate scientists based on the FEC (Federal Election Commission) data base. I found 20 or so contributions in excess of $200 by people who were likely climate scientists and 100% gave to democrats or Ralph Nader. I found a similar result looking at contributions by American IPCC contributing scientists where everyone who gave was giving to democrats except for a couple of known skeptics.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
it's well known that most scientists lean democratic - since the republican party decided that science is a matter of opinion, the earth is 5000 years old, there is no climate change
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
One of the old black professors that substitute for Rush said that the ratio is 20 to 1 if the arbitrator of truth is aesthetics, and 5 to 1 if it can be verified in the lab.
I think many right wing scientists are closeted.
And as they say, "Apply for a grant to study the nut gather of squirrels, no funds. Apply for a grant to study the effect of global warming on the nut gathering of squirrels, application approved."
I think if we put every public figure warmer in prison....
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
your source - the understudy for Rush Limbaugh?
wow. you really do your research, dude.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
My source was that I googled the name you dropped, and what comes up is that warmers are liberals.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc Good. That means that "warmers" are rational and logical, not lunatics who believe in god and eat meat.
mphello 1 month ago
@tnekkc AGW-deniers are guilty of threatening national security and violate the NDAA.
mphello 1 month ago
Comment removed
tnekkc 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610
Not easy, but researching Kerry Emmanuel, this is all I found:
Republican climate scientists are very rare and I suspect most of the ones that do exist are skeptics, in or out of the closet.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc Google Chernobyl and the Soviet Union. Google pollution in China to see how anti-environmental many so-called "communist" strawmen are.
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello Your language is a little to strong to advance the discussion. But I like your statement about communism and anti-environmentalism. Communist governments tend to be very anti-environment. Good point I am going to steal your argument to use for myself LOL. Well done, never thought of it like that. But you should really relax your rhetoric a little, it goes to far.
thesparitan 18 hours ago
Typtical ad hominem nonsense.. deny, claim they were 'out of context'... Face it.. you guys got caught with your pants down. Oh yeah 'Trick' it was just taken out of context. How about the part where they clearly tried to manipulate the peer review process, suppress contradictory evidence.
westcoast1965 1 month ago
@westcoast1965
Did you not watch the video?
Nah, you didn't watch the video.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity Yes.. heard the rationalization before. It's all sophistry. They were cherry picking and the plain language in the end doesn't lie. They were making the data fit a pre-conceived outcome. Some call it 'observation bias' if they're kind. I call it fraud. And there's far more damning emails than the 'hide the decline' one. I've read the emails - I'm sure you haven't.
westcoast1965 1 month ago
@westcoast1965
The only rationalization is yours where you rationalize taking a quote completely out of context and running with it, never actually listening to an explanation.
Deniers are the WORST at looking for data that fits their "preconceived outcome." You seriously want to talk about bias? How about how you deniers propped someone like Richard Muller up as a hero until he could no longer deny the proven science, now suddenly he's a shill.
You couldn't give LESS of a shit about truth.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity Your talking points.. "blah blah Out of context... blah blah.. out of context"
The Null Hypothesis IS the outcome until proven otherwise. You're free to make wild assertions about my concern for the truth... clearly you enjoy taking wild, unfounded assertions and elevating them to truth. We don't need data to prove a preconceived outcome - you do. You're the one supporting outlandish claims. You're the one supporting a radical agenda.
westcoast1965 1 month ago
@westcoast1965
Telling someone all you heard from them was blah blah blah shows your contempt for truth. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming like a child.
Speaking of taking unfounded assertions and elevating them to truth, here you take a single quote taken out of context and use it to assert a scientifically proven fact is a hoax. You've used NO science, you've acknowledged nothing in the video, and now you're talking about radical agendas? What a wacko.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity No.. not contempt for the truth. Why would I have such a thing? why? It's contempt for your pathetic insistence that any damning evidence is "taken out of context"
AGW is NOT a proven scientific fact. It is a poorly supported theory based on models. Its proponents were caught fudging results, withholding data, and suppressing contradictory studies. It's clear to anyone who reads the emails. Anybody reading this thread should go to the climate depot site and see for themselves.
westcoast1965 1 month ago
@westcoast1965
You still haven't listened to this video. They WEREN'T fudging data. You're blatantly doing what you condemn others of doing.
BTW, AGW isn't what we're talking about. This whole controversy was just over whether the climate was warming, which is proven fact, NOT JUST if we were causing it. Do try and keep up, I'll grow tired of your straw man arguments quickly.
BTW An example of fudging data is deniers who present graphs cut off at 1980 and claim 1980 = now <That's your ilk
chronDiggity 1 month ago
The global warming hoax is exposed, busted, and discredited.
But we individualists need eternal vigilance to guard against what ever next scam the subversive Marxist professors use to brain wash college students.
tnekkc 2 months ago
let's use some common sense, the earth is maybe 6bil years old and we have maybe a 100 years a hard data. Can we not realize that we are all speculating in the noise? Climate change dose however have an political agenda. Just a thought
mrdigitalextreme 2 months ago
Notice how global warming believers are wimps?
Afraid of everything?
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Afraid? Unlike, of course, the RadicalRightWingNut deniers who won't leave the house without a gun?
bannor99 2 months ago 4
@bannor99 Don't forget the magic crucifix to ward off the heathens. Some of them actually have crucifix shaped shotguns with silver shot and garlic in them. It never hurts to be safe! Any day the vampire werewolf zombie apocalypse might come and you'll be sorry you didn't arm yourself (in best Ice Age dodo voice) Oh yeah and don't forget a wooden stake to drive through Al Gore's heart, he's *really* scary. You can tell because the anti-science types still talk about him all the time.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
thank you for posting this. i learned a lot from it but wish those who deny would view it--with an open mind; the deniers i know have little or no education in science nor any desire to learn but think they know anyway. none so blind....
garudagal23 2 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
@garudagal23
for example, see
watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM
greenman3610 2 months ago
@garudagal23
I do scientific method for a living.
There is no proof that man made climate change is any threat.
It is as serious a the man-bear-pig threat that Gore wants us to worry about.
You can't just make stuff up, and think everyone is dumb enough to believe in global warming.
And I have plenty of education.
You can hardly function is society without using my designs.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc
"I do scientific method for a living."
the you should be able to cite something, mr science.
greenman3610 2 months ago 10
@greenman3610
This is how science works.
You come up with a hypothesis, and then you .... whoops! global warming believers never got passed that point.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc
Brilliance. Who ties your shoes in the morning?
Parabol0086 2 months ago
@Parabol0086
A servant that lost their brain to global warming propaganda.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc
As bad as that sounds (even though it's horse shit) it's still not as bad as pretending to something your not. A burger flipper by day, a computer superhero scientist by night...
I would like to see peer reviewed papers that support your claims. I could add don't show any Chris Monckton papers but they aren't peer reviewed so they wouldn't count.
Maybe I'm wrong about you, maybe you are just a shit kicker that works for an oil rigger company...
Parabol0086 2 months ago
@Parabol0086
Just like everything was politicized with Christianity in the middle ages, and politicized with Marxism in Maoist China, the US is now being politicized with liberalism, and liberalism is now polluting science in the US.
Watch the video on University of Washington TV website called "Re-interpreting the Fisheries Crisis" and professor Hilborn explain how peer review got all these fraudulent alarmist papers published about fisheries.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc
Wow.... Someone doing Scientific method for a living didn't quite understand my request.
Post links to peer reviewed papers presenting evidence against a warming planet. The fisheries page shows (possibly, didn't look too in depth as it has nothing to do with climate change) that Scientists have made mistakes. We know this happens. Show me evidence buddy, or don't bother replying.
The world has a conservative agenda, it's tearing us apart.. See, I can talk shit too.
Parabol0086 2 months ago 3
@greenman3610
Here is some science.
To prove something, you need math and data, something the global warming scammers never had.
They have faked data. They have secret computer models that are as valid as 1+1 =3.
Global warming is exposed and in decline.
Not only is the earth's temp declining, the popularity of global warming belief is less than those that believe in ghosts.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Cite the specific paper where the data is faked. You can't. What "secret" models? The models are available to anyone who wants to examine them. giss nasa gov/tools/modelE/ Source code tarballs and you can verify those models produce the same results as the published data which is also linked to from there.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2
Yes, all global warming scam comp models do not predict the last 11 years of declining temperatures.
Name one that does, you miserable global warming believer.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc "the last 11 years of declining temperatures" If that was true then wouldn't the oceans have stopped accumulating heat and wouldn't the polar regions have stopped losing ice, in the year 2000. Incase you're wondering, this hasn't happened. What you need to take into account is the heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere (El Nino and La Nina cycles). If you want to know more Skeptical Science dot com has alot of information on this issue.
Richard482 2 months ago
@tnekkc 100 years of good data and you throw away 80% of it for no reason? How is your manipulation of data "better" than what you claim ? At least climate scientists publish their data and calculations, all we see from the anti-science crowd is claims on youtube. BTW you said the data was faked, so when you cherry pick a 20% segment from the very same data and claim that it definitively shows cooling, well, let's just say you look foolish at best.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2
I agree completely, the global warming hoaxers have been cherry picking, lying, and should be in prison.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc
lol you got fucking owned, pal.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity
If you believe in global warming you are a sucker.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
you just revealed your only basis for denying proven science is that you don't want to look like a sucker.
I have a feeling you've been made a sucker in a big way in your life at least a few times, and now you're so skeptical of everything you would rather trust yourself about what's right with anything and everything anymore, except you aren't a climate scientist and probably don't understand half of what's presented to you. In that, it is you who is the sucker, to your own arrogance.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity
I will go further.
If you believe in ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle, Big Foot, UFOs, Ozone depletion, or Keynesian economics, then they made a fool of you.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
Yeah because big foot and global warming have the exact same amount of supporting evidence.
I see who I'm talking to now. Just someone who talks, that's it. You have nothing to offer.
So like greenman said, cite something, mr. science LMFAO
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity
They have big foot finger prints over the last 50 years.
You better check it out.
Lots more to be fooled by than the global warming hoax.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
What's your opinion on what Richard Muller says on global warming?
Do you find him to be a paid shill?
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity
Muller is a shill for the completely wrong Keynesian economic model, so he was forced to warp thoughts for the global warming scam.
What does it all mean?
Show me a conservative scientist that fell for global warming.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
But when Muller was saying it was a hoax because the science was flawed, people like you propped him up as a hero.
When he decided to do the science himself, and found the planet IS warming and the debate is now strictly whether we're causing it, suddenly he's a shill.
I know you know you're full of shit.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@chronDiggity
Reagan started out pro abortion.
Jesse Jackson started out anti abortion.
Muller started out anti global warming.
They all learned to get their ducks in a row.
Before you think Muller has no backbone, look at the supreme court in 2000, when all members flipped their states rights positions when it was convenient.
What doe it all mean?
It is the Marxism, stupid.
tnekkc 1 month ago
@tnekkc
LOL! Oh, MARXISM. That explains it all. Who needs science to refute science when you can just throw that label around? BRILLIANT!
The fact is the solution this problem won't come from government intervention, and opposing government intervention doesn't require a complete denial of proven science.
In fact, what will solve it is LESS government. No taxes on the alternative fuels and energy efficiency market AT ALL, no horrible regulation that stifles innovation.
You're so lost.
chronDiggity 1 month ago
@tnekkc Yet you believe in imaginary things like "god".
There is infinitely more proof of aliens visiting earth than there is of "god" or that AGW is "false". You are also an anti-semite who blames Zionists and Jews for everything and an anti-porn anti-pot-choice terrorist.
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnekkc "I do scientific method for a living."
hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
sTevefor3 2 months ago
@tnekkc lol you are a liar. you don't "do scientific method for a living"
Aanthanur 2 months ago
@Aanthanur
I often just sit around in labs watching others work on experiments I have designed. I am checking that no out of control variables are introduced.
Ordinary numbers could not describe the number of out of control variables when trying to apply scientific method to the earth's climate.
We do know the earth has been getting cooler for 11 years.
We do know the earth is much cooler than it was 1000 years ago.
But if you could predict the climate, take your skills to the race track.
tnekkc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur
I often just sit around in labs watching others work on experiments I have designed. I am checking that no out of control variables are introduced.
Ordinary numbers could not describe the number of out of control variables when trying to apply scientific method to the earth's climate.
We do know the earth has been getting cooler for 11 years.
We do know the earth is much cooler than it was 1000 years ago.
But if you could predict the climate, take your skills to the race track.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc who says "I do scientific method for a living" ? lol and its a property of CO2 to cause warming that cant be argued it has been known for a very long time and the development of heat seeking missiles lead to it being investigate more for its role in heating the planet. whether warming is overal positive or negative can be argued but in all we and the other organisms on the planet have adjusted to this climate and if we diverge to quickly its likely bad.
Prontest 2 months ago
@Prontest
I thought that the Swedes calculated the contribution of CO2 to global warming, 110 years ago, and proved it was mathematically negligible.
Math means nothing to a pro global warming propagandist.
Watch the youtube video "The Global Warming Hoax!", and you will see professor Pieter Arend Folkens explain the history of the global warming hoax. It goes way back.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Things have changed we know of feed back loops, and we produce far more CO2, we have satelites that can see temperature differences over the whole surface of the earth, etc. we have known of the properties of CO2 for many years but we have not known all of the effects it has on a large system for that long and we are still figuring it out but the more we know the more it shows how little pushes can have large effects.
Prontest 2 months ago
@Prontest
The problem is not global warming, the problem is liberals.
When the door slams in their face with racism, feminism, or environmentalism, they will be back with a new back door ism to push us in the collectivist direction.
We need liberal threat awareness education.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Wow, you're insane.
zapo147 2 months ago
@zapo147 Naw, he's not inane. Insanity implies a hapless individual afflicted by a mental illness. Willful ignorance and a denial of common sense and evidence is just that. Look at the anti-science types and what they talk about: anything but evidence. That's not a coincidence, that's the same technique that young earth creationists, astrologers and faith "healers" have used for centuries. Same shit different century.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@tnekkc If you're a scientist then I'm a flobberworm. Only non-scientists speak of absolute certainties. Why are you obsessed with Al Gore? He's not a climate scientist, he's never published a scientific paper but here you go citing a book he published a decade ago as "evidence" of some sort? So here's a question: in your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would scientists have to present to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2
I am not a scientist.
I am an engineer that designs tests for money.
So you are not a flobberworm, just a worm.
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for fraud.
AGW has already been disproved by a cooling planet, but also the AGW pushers have been caught hiding the decline.
Speaking of decline, AGW cannot sustain any credibility without propaganda life support, so it is being taken off life support.
We must make room for the next Marxist scam.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Can you not give us your own personal opinion? You know all this science, and you have all these other opinions, surely you must have some sort of response? In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would scientists have to present to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Do you not understand the question or do you choose not to give us your opinion on that?
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnekkc The term "hide the decline" refered to a decline in tree ring data known as the tree ring divergence problem. not global temperature.
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
This problem was widely discussed in the scientific literature and widely available for public viewing years before those emails were hacked.
Richard482 2 months ago
@garudagal23 Hey nice to know GW chumps like you have such impressive credentials in science. Dr. Richard Lindzen is obviously lacking a high school diploma.
Freak.
FantasticBob7000 2 months ago
Also watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo
TheMrSirCharles 3 months ago
Confusing and conflating "key points" i.e. minor semantics did not closely makes Muller incorrect on the whole.
Greenman, why are you so bigoted as to call those who cannot believe in AGW because of the realities of otherwise as "anti-science"? The weight of proof against AGW is factual science.
Never forget, Muller will turn in the end. His income and the health of his grandchildren depend on what he says from now on. Listen to his statement to congress. It's not his sentence structure.
m1aws 3 months ago
Climate change is just like the population bomb and women's liberation.
It is more back door tricks to push the cause of Marxism, that the people do not want.
tnekkc 3 months ago
@tnekkc
You forgot voting rights and child labor laws.
greenman3610 3 months ago 7
@greenman3610
I have to think back about those who voted Stalin, Hitler, and Mao out of office because the liberal collectivist gov was working them too hard.
If Stalin, Hitler, or Mao were a community organizer in the USA today, they would be using global warming like a tool.
tnekkc 3 months ago
@tnekkc
"voted out of office"?
your grasp of history is as clear as your understanding of climate science.
thanks for reinforcing the key point of this series.
greenman3610 3 months ago 11
@greenman3610
Ooo, that's right.
When left wing gov take overs happen, they suspend elections.
The first day Hitler did animal rights.
Soon suspended elections.
Then invaded.
Then gun control.
Just like Obama would like to do, using global warming as propaganda for the mush heads.
tnekkc 3 months ago
@greenman3610
Yes, AGW is a back door Marxist scam.
Marxism always fails at the polls, so the subversive professor Marxist devils try something else. .. feminism, environmentalism, anything but the ugliness they really are.. Marxism.
tnekkc 2 months ago
@tnekkc Oh! Don't forget minimum wage and the theory of evolution. Its all part of our secret left wing communist plot to control you, your family and all your freedoms. But it looks like you've discovered our sinister plan. Curses! Back to the old drawing board boys.
I suggest you put your tinfoil hat back on in the meantime.
zzyzx0788 2 months ago
You don't know how much money I would have paid to see the look the Koch's faces
unfathomablebo 3 months ago
Aww what the heck. Let's to this step by step.
Would you agree that Co2 is still rising at pretty much the same rate as it has been for at least the last few decades? I've read a few ascertions on warm friendly sites that it's acellerating in the last decade or so but haven't seen any data on it but would be more than happy to concede that point.
DamageSix 3 months ago
Why bother. Anything presented against AGW is inevitably labled as denier propaganda. No Pressure now just conform or explode.
DamageSix 3 months ago
used to believe in AGW until I really started reading up on both sides of the issue.
Am completely disgusted by the rabid ad hominem attatcks from the AGW alarmists. Am a technical consultant specializing in ballistics so while not a climatoligist am intemately familiar with the scientific process, statistical analysis, and modeling. Skepticism is INTERGAL to science there is no science without it. Data manipulation, suppression of disenting work, cherry picking and lies are not science.
DamageSix 3 months ago
@DamageSix
so, without rebutting any of the well documented facts in the video, you simply bloviate about your preconcieved, unsupported, paranoid talking points. You're making my case about the denialist mind.
greenman3610 3 months ago
GM- This response was to a different posting (and poster) that was full of name calling and ad-homonym attacks not to mention veiled threats of things that were going to happen to "deniers". I had several windows open an inadvertently pasted it to this video as apposed to it's intended destination. I do however stand by my assertions above. Having just re-read the Cimategate emails between Jones et all it's incontrovertible that they actively conspired to subvert the peer review process.
DamageSix 3 months ago
WOW having just actually watched your vid your presentationis a TEXTBOOK example of the kind of unproffessional disgusting behavior i was refering to. Name calling, character besmirchment, you run right down the globalist PoPD checklist and don't miss a beat. Hide the decline is not the issue. The criminal behavoir fo climate gate is the active suppression of desenting opinions by government funded scientist. The only problem is that Co2 is still dramatically rising but temps are flatlined..
DamageSix 3 months ago
cont... According to ALL AGW saints and the AGW God this must result in temperatures raising not just accordingly but rising in an ever increasing acceleration because of the positive feedback decread by the all knowing Gore-acle God of AGW. Unfortunately those pesky actual recorded temperatures just aren't cooperating as all the recorded records point out there has been no temperature increace in over a decade. The best thing of all is we have a TON of global warming horror predictions .....
DamageSix 3 months ago
cont.... some of which have allready proved to be BS others in the opcoming years that will be shown to be BS. It was real handy of your side to make so many diffinitive predicitons. Were's the 50 million "climate refugees" we were supposed to see by 2010 from low islands? How many thousands or even perhaps millions of famine deaths could we have avoided if we hadn't diverted 5% of the US corn production to ethonal? Your side should be thanking their lucky stars that Cap & Trade.....
DamageSix 3 months ago
cont...wasn't instituted. Could you imagine the blowback against AGW alarmist if the price of energy doubled (driving everything else up). How many people who are now just barely holding on in this economy would loose there homes. How many businesses on the brink could absorb a doubling of costs. Now imagine all those afflicted people by 2020 and there's still no catastrophic warming to justify the sacrifice or more like we procede from our current temp platue ......
DamageSix 3 months ago
cont...into another cyclical decline phase? Lucky people have cached all the alarmist claims and threats and they'll come back to bight you in the but. "when is it going to be OK to lynch a climate denier huh?" "crimes agianst humanity for econocide?" yeah that 's real responsible rehtoric now when people aren't too bad off." Better hope the skeptic comunity has a little more restraint when the economy crashes, the temps go down and people start wondering why we blew $1Trillion+ green fraud
DamageSix 3 months ago
@DamageSix
well, it's nice that you watched.
Now, refute.
with evidence, please.
greenman3610 3 months ago
Showing that a small amount of tree ring data was published in a paper, as a way of backing up a false claim that Jones and his associated hoaxers were open with their data. Conveniently, no mention of the fact that large amounts of original temperature measurement data were withheld by the hoaxers, and some data were lost or destroyed. And no mention of the fact that data sets were constructed by the hoaxers from results from measuring sites chosen for their warm bias.
LaurieWilliams5066 3 months ago
@LaurieWilliams5066
you would be unable to document the destruction of data, from anything other than the voices in Glenn Beck's head. (which are not peer reviewed)
If you have some facts to present, as I have, with links to evidence, as I have, then do so.
Meanwhile the most recent reconstructions of temperature all continue to bear out the truth of Mann's and Jone's work.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 You referenced supposition, not facts.
356pla 3 months ago
"climate deniers" - not a good start. Accusing people who are justifiably skeptical of consensus style "climate science" of being anti science - no better. Praising Michael Mann's long exposed hoax hockey stick graph - same. No medieval warm period in that graph, contrary to well documented worldwide reality. No mention of the lack of warming of the planet for over 10 years, or of recent significant cooling, or any of the real science behind the hoax. And that annoying percussive junk music.
LaurieWilliams5066 3 months ago
Is it me, or did YouTube TOTALLY fuck up the appearance and layout of these comment boxes, because they got bored and had nothing else to do?
This is fucking pissing me off.
mphello 4 months ago
@27182818R
So, just letting you know: I've done more hardcore mathematical modelling and deeper thinking throughout my life about scientific principles than you could even possibly imagine.
mphello 4 months ago
@27182818R
So, now we COULD say humans are NOT causing current GW with all their GHG emissions from a fundamental . But, then mathematical modelling and logical consistency would force you to conclude that nobody ever died in acts of terrorist bombings. (i.e. Terrorists bombings were not the CAUSE of Israelis' deaths by Palestinians.)
Doesn't matter how "unrelated" you think those events are to GW. The mathematical FACT is that logical consistency would demand it.
mphello 4 months ago
@27182818R
Yes - I mathematicallly model ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Math does not give a FUCK that you put such-and-such event into THIS category (AGW) and such-and-such event into THAT category (OJ Simpson, bombings in Palestine). ONLY mathematical models and logistical models can LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY determine CAUSE AND EFFECT in ALL cases ONCE you define your axioms from first quantum mechanical principles.
Until then, EVERYTHING is just sets of atoms moving around.
mphello 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@27182818R
Now, since the laws of logic and cause and effect are universal, what I just said in my previous post must be true for QUADRILLIONS of atoms, say, like O J Simpson. Blood stains, victims' bodies, etc. NONE of that PROVES he CAUSED their deaths. It could prove he heroically fought off the real killers and got cut in the process and was too late. But, some arbitrary LEGAL definition says "your DNA at scene implies you caused that event".
mphello 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@27182818R
You ARE right: modelling does not prove causation. And, guess what? Neither does physical evidence.
Causation is actually a DEFINED thing. Start with quantum mechanics. One atom approaches another. Instantaneously, by coulomb forces, the second atom moves. How do you define which "causes" which to move?
But modelling CAN reveal all logical inconsistencies in how those definitions of causation are applied.
mphello 4 months ago
@27182818R
Now, since the laws of logic and cause and effect are universal, what I just said in my previous post must be true for QUADRILLIONS of atoms, say, like O J Simpson. Blood stains, victims' bodies, etc. NONE of that PROVES he CAUSED their deaths. It could prove he heroically fought off the real killers and got cut in the process and was too late. But, some arbitrary LEGAL definition says "your DNA at scene implies you caused that event".
mphello 4 months ago
watch?v=J_-Iro4viFc
ejbh3160 4 months ago
You can't hide the facts, and the scientific results are all the same. Climate change IS happening.
Clarrisani 5 months ago
@Clarrisani
We just had another deep low sea ice minimum. watch for the video very soon.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 I'll keep an eye out for it.
Clarrisani 5 months ago
There's an issue here... it's an annoying background sound. As well as... in what location were these temperature readings taken? In a city?
faro0485 5 months ago
at 14:20 you see Dr. Muller testifying before congress but his lips dont match the words being spoken (supposedly DR. Muller). if the maker of this film can get the clip of him testifying before congress why doesnt he have the appropriate sound byte? rewind to 13:00 and listen to the REAL Dr. Muller and then listen to 14:20 again....its not the same voice. that could be ANYBODY saying that. mabey even Doyle Rice
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
Why don't you go to the Wattsupwiththat website and get your proof there that you're listening to the REAL Dr. Muller in greenman3610's video? Since his publication the climate denier community is tearing him into parts, including personal threats. That's the way right-wing deniers do their "work". When the real science doesn't add up with their preconceptions they're turning violent.
TheMrSirCharles 5 months ago
@TheMrSirCharles the London riots (and im talking about the last three years not just this recent one) have all been by left wing anarchists socialists and "green" hippy types. so far the death toll is 14. death toll of the american TEA party movement in the same time 0. which side is more violent? the facts dont match with your assertion
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
Have you been at Wattsupwiththat? Do you retract from your allegation of a fake in greenman3610's video?
The "London riots" have possibly been carried out by anarchists, but definitely not by any political group, particularly not "green hippies". Some of them were even racist.
Fortunately Gabrielle Giffords didn't die after getting shot. And we don't talk about about Anders Behring Breivik now...
Get real. greenman3610's video isn't based on fakes, it is based on gospel truth.
TheMrSirCharles 5 months ago
@TheMrSirCharles the bloke who shot Gabby Giffords was a socialist. so that makes him left wing. and Anders Behring Breivik is a "green" activist. he thinks the world is over populated. thanks for two more examples of leftwing violent behavior
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
LOL. And pigs can fly... No wonder you're seeing fakes in greenman3610's video.
Over and out (You can't teach a monkey playing the piano).
TheMrSirCharles 5 months ago
@TheMrSirCharles the more i hear of this Anders Behring Breivik feller the more i start to like him. he makes some good sense ya know what i mean? AND he has leadership skills. ah hell our mission is as clear as mud boys. an ah mean to execute without deviation. YOU CALLING ME A DEVIANT BOY? WHAAAAAHOOOOOO...FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!!....ahem...sorry i stole that last bit from grand theft auto IV.
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
We need to have more Breiviks who are willing to bomb and blow up coal plans and factory farms where billions of animals are needlessly bred and murdered. And to kill anti-socialists who keep stealing from the poor and giving to rich lazy bankers.
For FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! Nobody who eats meat gives a shit about freedom. The TRILLIONS of animals murdered just because sick twisted deviants won't go vegan have NO comprehension of what the loss of freedom means.
mphello 4 months ago
@amyhuk
anyone that wishes to can listen to the CSPan video.
and of course, the most recent news on Muller's agreement with NASA and others reveals the stupidity and paranoia of this comment.
greenman3610 4 months ago
if you pause the video at 13:26 you can read in the NON highlighted areas "there arent monetary strings attatched if the programe were terminated tomorrow nobody loses jobs, no large government programs shut down and no DEPENDANT programs shut down either...what is a "dependant program"? its clear that AGW is solely a money making scam with trillions of dollars at stake being taken from the working class and given to an elite few in the scientific class.
amyhuk 5 months ago
the narrator of this Propaganda peice sounds like a typical liberal. smug dismisive arrogant. lets play a game GOOGLE "seven forms of propaganda" and lets see how many forms the narrator uses. and how many forms the people he is trying to discredit uses. BTW the narators name is Doyle Rice he lives in Canada
amyhuk 5 months ago
first off Micheal Manns hockey stick graph has already been PROVEN to be wrong. and this video substantiates it. it says he superimposed earlier data over the years for data he didnt have (mirror image) from 1980-1998. well if it colder from 1958 to 1976 the inverse (mirror image) will show dramatic warming because you will get warming that happened naturally from 76 onward plus inverted cooling (warming in manns graph)
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
somebody is off their meds.
greenman3610 5 months ago 2
@greenman3610 ahh yes here it comes. typical leftwing tactic discredit the messenger. what meds do you think im off? and be specific this is for science
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk
thorazine? haldol? aricept?
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 two anti psychotics and an alzheimers medication...cmon you can do better than that. i was hoping you would be honest. but i should of known better. dare to dream
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk That does not make sense. Why should we mirror image the graph?
KamiKagutsuchi 5 months ago
@KamiKagutsuchi have you seen what the graph looks like when you use the REAL temperatures and not the proxy tree ring temps?.....hence "hide the decline" the real temps are lower by far than then the proxy temps and almost as low as they were in 1973. but that didnt correspond to ANTHROPOGENIC global warming theory which states temps go up up up as co2 emmisions go up...but the fact is world temps dropped not raised as co2 rose.
amyhuk 5 months ago
@amyhuk dear oh dear. You dont get it at all do you. It is the other way round. It is the real observed temperatures that have gone up. The proxy tree ring data is showing divergence (decline) from the observed data and this could be for a multitude of reasons. This would obviously be a concern for our historical records if it werent for the fact that other proxy data still show the expected upward trend.
SirFBonds 4 months ago
You remind me of Thunderf00t with the way you use random clips like the way you do.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
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 6 months ago
@Galv140577
The swindle movie has, of course, become an embarrassment to
all those involved. Perhaps you did not get that memo.
But thanks for bringing the subject of one of my most popular ids:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 6 months ago 4
@greenman3610 no anthropogenic global warming is an embarasment to all involved. notice how funding for it is dropping off exponentially? and how progressive and marxist candidates arent getting elected anymore? and the ones who managed to squeek by during the last election cycle are biting their nails and actually WORKING with Republicans and the TEA party now so they wont get booted out. you had your chance and you FAILED.
amyhuk 5 months ago
The climategate emails really are an "Inconvenient Truth" to the carbon tax lackeys. To see the mind of one of the main global warming nutjobs on youtube, look at my comments page from MPhello and go to encyclopedia dramatica and read up on Clara Massa. The face of global warming = nutjob
HerecomestheGrump 6 months ago
@HerecomestheGrump I'd hardly call "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" as a source, it's kinda their thing to say crazy shit, dontchathink? Not only that, but attacking a person who you disagree with only hurts your own postion. Maybe arguing facts would be better than personally attacking someone. ;)
Slanderous23 5 months ago
Problem with your video is that instead of assessing Muller's accusations you go on a rampage over a quote, which would only be relevant if he didn't explain the trick exactly as mentioned in the email. The problem isn't the quote, the problem is the decline that was hidden, giving certainty to a study where none was justified. And sure, the divergence problem was known but only to a very specialized circle. In more general papers such as the WMO ones, they always "hid" the decline.
LuisManuelLealDias 6 months ago
@LuisManuelLealDias Glad to see there is another thinker on this forum. I find global warming proponents make the same mistake as skeptics, they reach a conclusion based upon insignificant data. Most of the people making such claims are not scientists, but like to think the are smart.
Climategate was legitimate lie on the part of scientists, my colleagues, and it should be an embarassment to the profession. In addition, it should make people question the data and start over on the climate issue
MewCat100 6 months ago
Comment removed
Jepumy 6 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
The real data from the NOAA as of today looks completely different that the hockey stick trick. Look at the graph now that real data has been collected, and you will see how wrong the "hockey stick" is.
Any time a "scientist" claims to be using a "trick", said "scientist" has deviated from the scientific method in a very dangerous way. That is the only reason I call bull on this apparent indoctrination of "science".
kyle92223 6 months ago
@kyle92223 Good point. Science requires evidence and data, not "tricks" or methods used to alter and observation. Theories need to fit data, not the other way around. So much politics has infiltrated climate research that there are now very few scientists who can be trusted not to manipulate their findings. It is most unfortuate, but I think we have to start from scratch on the whole issue.
MewCat100 6 months ago
I want you to know that I subscribed after watching this video.
ItsEasyIfYouThink 6 months ago
Respond to this video...
thanks. hope you will spread these around.
greenman3610 6 months ago
I'm confused as to why Bill Gates would give money to a climate denial organization considering he isn't one.
pbmdh 6 months ago
Your video is anything by even-handed. It is filled with biased rhetoric, sensationalism, and misdirection, all the same things you accuse Fox News of. You see, you are no different them. You're a cherry-picking, sensationalist. You'd do just fine at Fox News or CNN or any other main stream media outlet that spins its information. You are the least reliable source of information on this topic.
MewCat100 6 months ago
@MewCat100
show me where I'm wrong. I'll wait.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Note that I am not saying climate change scientists have lied or that they have "tricked" anyone. What I am saying is the data they work with is incomplete. It isn't the whole picture and as such may or may not be accurate, we just don't know. I am only pointing out that drawing conclusions from the data, which could have widespread implications for society, needs to be undertaken carefully and not because you hate Fox News or the other guy hates CNN. Are you a scientist?
MewCat100 6 months ago
Hey greenman3610,
You sent me from another video as a claim that this somehow proves your stance on climate change. In truth, this has no evidence at all. It is just another one of your hack jobs involving rhetoric and name-calling, but no data. As I have said, I don't come down on either side of the debate because I do not find the evidence to be abundant enough to be conclusive. I think we should work hard to understand what is going on, but avoid jumping to conclusions.
MewCat100 6 months ago
@MewCat100
anyone that wants data can google
nasa key indicators
check the graphs, download the data yourself, and analyze your brains out.
I prefer to let people with decades more knowledge than I have guide me through this.
But I certainly await your findings with interest.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 So at least you admit to the fact that you present rhetoric and not fact. You are a part of the problem, not the solution.
MewCat100 6 months ago
@MewCat100
apparently, me, and 98 percent of qualified scientists on the planet.
maybe we will discover that Monckton has cured AIDS, but till then, I'm using a condom. good luck with your exploits.
greenman3610 6 months ago 2
@greenman3610 Wow, way to apply some hyperbole with your "me, and 98 percent of qualified scientists on the planet." Did you conduct a poll? Do you actually have access to that kind of data? Of course not, no one does. Just more evidence that you will say anything so long as it supports your dogma. You are just as bad as the religious, wanting so bad to believe that you will make up stories to delude yourself.
MewCat100 6 months ago