After initializing and parametrizing 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 utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
So this is not about science but about money? So scientists are dishonest because their funding comes from socialist governments that want more carbon taxes and more money. AGW received about 20+ billion from governments that are asking for more money and more socialist taxes. I agree with your claim that scientists are dishonest based on the source of their funding and this explains why we cannot trust the scientist receiving government socialist taxes and why funding changes their viewpoint.
Al Gore is a liar, he cunsumes more energy than most americans in the three houses he havem where of one is at the beach ... He buy carbon credits from his OWN company too...
Wake Up Sheeple !!!!!!!!
Google : CRU Emails ... Spread the Word. We can NOT allow these thiefs and Liars to go head with the Copenhagen 'clamp down on humanity' Treaty...
Largest greenhouse gas by a country mile is H20. In case you failed basic science that magic stuff is water vapor. H20 gas accounts for WELL over 90% of the suns energy absorbed. Oxygen makes up 18% and co2 is a trace gas at 0.038% (that is 3/100th of a %). Of that tiny co2, nature puts out 97% of co2 and man contributes only 3% (0.00114% = 1000/th of a %). Mans tiny Co2 footprint is CLEARY NOT the driver of temperature and this explains why co2 still going up and yet we see GLOBAL COOLING.
Since we see global cooling right now, explain how a ocean currents can tell co2 to let more energy escape into outer space? Furthermore Gore's co2 graph shows co2 following temperature rise. You must have failed basic science since you can't even read Gore's graph that shows co2 FOLLOWING temperature. I suppose it also helps to ignore that Al Gore's on the Board of Directors of a company that trades carbon, you know that taxation system designed to fleece more money out of your pocket.
The increased absorption of energy by CARBON will increase the evaporation rates of water, expanding the deserts and area of droughts, and causing periodic flooding when these large amounts of evaporated water come in contact with cool air.
@BeyondBeliefs 90% of the IR radiation is not absrobed by CO2. It has specific absorption peaks at certain frequencies that can reach 90% absorption but it does not absorb 90% as a whole. H2O is actually a much better absorber as well as CH4 which is made in large amounts by cows. To understand absorption cross sections I'd recommend you take a Quantum Mechanics 1 course.
IPCC - "U.N.-ese" for "propaganda with a scientific sounding name". A little research into how this fraudulent body works will deflate the hot air from the MGW argument for any critical thinker.
The judge identified 9 LIES and ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film", and ORDERED WARNING information be given to children before they are indoctrinated er watch it.
The comments below are compelling, except for one thing... Where's the spike in temperatures that the hockey stick model foretold?
If CO2 causes warming, why do CO2 concetrations follow, rather than preceed, warming?
I saw a graph showing solar activity that was VERY close to the actual temps and I find it very difficult to believe that our fraction of contribution to CO2 (which is still comprising a mere 1/4th of 1% of the atmosphere) has a greater impact on temperatures than the sun. Sorry.
Pause the video at 1:16. You'll see the Wall Street Journal is drawn from 1996 (it's blurry but legible), but they're talking about it as if it were the 2007 report. The changes in question in 1996... were part of normal peer-review processes (standard procedure).
Also, they confuse the Summary for Policymakers with the actual IPCC report. The "hockey stick" is still there, prominently -- figure 6.10, along with over ten other studies that all reach the same conclusion.
McIntyre: If the flawed bristlecone pine series are removed, the hockey stick disappears regardless of how the PCs are calculated and regardless of how many are included. The hockey stick shape is not global, it is a local phenomenon associated with eccentric proxies. Mann discovered this long ago and never reported it."
For a graph so widely reported to support AGW it is fraud. If the graph reappeared, it did so WITHOUT supporting comment and analyses. Really, these guys are just dirt bags.
Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that McIntyre's claim resulted from errors in McIntyre's method (that is, he didn't replicate Mann -- for an explanation why, see tinyurl com/2nq55q). Furthermore, Wahl and Ammann replicate the results from its original data.
This is meaningless, though, because it doesn't address the other independent studies that also reached the same conclusion. McIntyre is strangely silent about these.
The point remains: It's still in the report, and you were wrong.
Yes, that clip about the NYT was from 1996 was about corruption in the IPCC. (NOT related to Hockey stick).
More scientists are bailing, and even better is the Post had an article about a scientist who had 1900 summations to the IPCC, and worked for IPCC for 16 years.
That scientist stated the following:
"The IPCC is fundamentally
corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."
The UN is doing damage control at about the rate of one scandal per week!
if you were intellectually honest, you'd concede that TS is correct in saying that the IPCC never did drop the hockey stick. And you say that those that believe in AGW are dogmatic? Take a look in the mirror.
When they say it was removed, they talking about the 2nd review. It was put back in, but in a different form completely without prominence (likely due to storm of controversy). So yes, they did remove its original form. The REAL issue here is that hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics (what happened to peer review?). Press, schools, gov etc used this to set public policy. It is poor used car salesman science at the best.
Actually, the "hockey stick" (that created by Mann in 1998) was only ever included in the third assessment report (and the 4th), and in both it was featured quite prominantly.
Not that this makes it a poster child for global warming. In fact, its point is rather quite mundane: global temperatures are likely warmer today than at any point over the last 600 years. A more poster-worthy graph might be the juxtaposition of tropospheric and stratospheric trends.
I did not say assessment, I said the 2nd review (big difference), it was removed. And, no it was not mundane, it was flashed around the world as proof of the chicken little sky is falling. To try and shuffle this off and say it's mundane it is disingenuous on your part. If it's so mundane, then why are even having a debate here?
In the aftermath of the hockey stick's demolition, some scientists connected to the IPCC have tried to insist that it actually didn't matter that much to their case. Any such attempt to downplay the influence of the graph flies in the face of the print record. Without it the TAR would have looked been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.
The hockey stick paper was deeply flawed and it contradicted other credible evidence then appearing in the scientific literature. The flaws could have been discovered during the review process under even the most elementary fact-checking. Yet the review process not only allowed this paper through, but made it front-and-centre. No, this can't be simply whitewashed away..
The funny thing is that the IPCC is trying to do equally fraudulent things with tthe replacements to the Mann hockey stick - for instance amongst the spaghetti of proxies, there's one by Briffa et al. which stops short in 1950. Why's that? Because the proxy falls - which would be an inconvenient fact for the warmaholics.
You have no disagreements with the issues in the video, but choose to question credentials? Great arguing on your part. Why does one need credentials that the IPCC people are a bunch of used car salesman and crooks? You reserve the right to a simple opinion but not give that right to people in this video? So, accept your credentials and opinion then? If YOUR RULE is you can't have an obvious opinion on something without credentials, then why give yours? (remember this is YOUR rule now).
After initializing and parametrizing 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 utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@ 13 seconds appears the hockey graph, what is the margin of error roughly?
15 - 20 % , I don't know how to interpret that, Glen says WIDE, what numbers could you put on it.
So what would this mean ?, That at any given time frame on this graph the actual temps could have been on either side of the supposed trend line,
riverstrat 6 months ago
This is a Control and $ grabbing scheme by Al Gore and Bankers IMO, however
@ 48 seconds you see the hockey stick graph, Chris Horner says it is not in the report, what am I missing ?
riverstrat 6 months ago
Frederick Seitz also claimed that smoking was not dangerous to one's health. He was paid big dollars by the tobacco industry.
I think you need another guy to hang your GW hat on.
TerrencePhillip66 8 months ago 2
So this is not about science but about money? So scientists are dishonest because their funding comes from socialist governments that want more carbon taxes and more money. AGW received about 20+ billion from governments that are asking for more money and more socialist taxes. I agree with your claim that scientists are dishonest based on the source of their funding and this explains why we cannot trust the scientist receiving government socialist taxes and why funding changes their viewpoint.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
No hockey stick in the 4th UN report. See watch?v=vys9wUl3rZ0
Medieval Warm Period. See watch?v=3AzimS2D7WA
drkstrong 9 months ago
Al Gore is blatant waste of carbon.
cogrn73 1 year ago
Before you claim to know what is going on with the climate you should spend a few hours reading through the "skepticalscience" website.
katakanadian 1 year ago
Google - GREENLAND HOCKEY STICK . to see the real Hockey Stick.
uboat21 1 year ago
You are all in a state of denial...
remcovanek2 2 years ago
you're in a state of evangelism
natdavi 1 year ago
Sure... NOT.
remcovanek2 1 year ago
So Albertkallal what I think your saying is:-
Di-hydrogen Monoxide should be classified as a toxic substance.
dreamreal756 2 years ago 2
Al Gore is a liar, he cunsumes more energy than most americans in the three houses he havem where of one is at the beach ... He buy carbon credits from his OWN company too...
Wake Up Sheeple !!!!!!!!
Google : CRU Emails ... Spread the Word. We can NOT allow these thiefs and Liars to go head with the Copenhagen 'clamp down on humanity' Treaty...
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago 7
No amount of corporate propaganda can change the Nuclear fact that the Carbon Atom absorbs over 90% of the infrared radiation that strikes it.
Period.
I recommend the extensive use of Titanium Dioxide. It is a molecule that reflects over 90% of the IR radiation that strikes it.
Build an industry around that.
BeyondBeliefs 2 years ago
Largest greenhouse gas by a country mile is H20. In case you failed basic science that magic stuff is water vapor. H20 gas accounts for WELL over 90% of the suns energy absorbed. Oxygen makes up 18% and co2 is a trace gas at 0.038% (that is 3/100th of a %). Of that tiny co2, nature puts out 97% of co2 and man contributes only 3% (0.00114% = 1000/th of a %). Mans tiny Co2 footprint is CLEARY NOT the driver of temperature and this explains why co2 still going up and yet we see GLOBAL COOLING.
Albertkallal 2 years ago
Since we see global cooling right now, explain how a ocean currents can tell co2 to let more energy escape into outer space? Furthermore Gore's co2 graph shows co2 following temperature rise. You must have failed basic science since you can't even read Gore's graph that shows co2 FOLLOWING temperature. I suppose it also helps to ignore that Al Gore's on the Board of Directors of a company that trades carbon, you know that taxation system designed to fleece more money out of your pocket.
Albertkallal 2 years ago 2
@Albertkallal Remember kids Lie if ever caught.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
Put the Ice back on the mountains and the poles.
BeyondBeliefs 2 years ago
The increased absorption of energy by CARBON will increase the evaporation rates of water, expanding the deserts and area of droughts, and causing periodic flooding when these large amounts of evaporated water come in contact with cool air.
So, buy some flood insurance.
BeyondBeliefs 2 years ago
Wow, very interesting, so, since man has caused the earth to warm THIS time, what cause it in the past? Dinosaurs driving around in SUV's?
beazgod 2 years ago
@BeyondBeliefs 90% of the IR radiation is not absrobed by CO2. It has specific absorption peaks at certain frequencies that can reach 90% absorption but it does not absorb 90% as a whole. H2O is actually a much better absorber as well as CH4 which is made in large amounts by cows. To understand absorption cross sections I'd recommend you take a Quantum Mechanics 1 course.
thebestsumoeva 9 months ago
IPCC - "U.N.-ese" for "propaganda with a scientific sounding name". A little research into how this fraudulent body works will deflate the hot air from the MGW argument for any critical thinker.
jimmbbo 2 years ago 2
Great book on how the GW advocates are trying to silence the thousands of scientists who disagree with their assessments...
Red Hot Lies, by Christopher C Horner
GrecRI 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
The British High Court ruled AL Gore LIED.
The judge identified 9 LIES and ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film", and ORDERED WARNING information be given to children before they are indoctrinated er watch it.
Check out Inconvenient UNtruths
tinyurl[.]com/aj65tj
aGlobalWarmingHOAX 3 years ago
@GrecRI Great book indeed I am about 3/4 of the way through it now and I am pissed off at our politicians for believing this crap of GW.
GZUS96 1 year ago
The comments below are compelling, except for one thing... Where's the spike in temperatures that the hockey stick model foretold?
If CO2 causes warming, why do CO2 concetrations follow, rather than preceed, warming?
I saw a graph showing solar activity that was VERY close to the actual temps and I find it very difficult to believe that our fraction of contribution to CO2 (which is still comprising a mere 1/4th of 1% of the atmosphere) has a greater impact on temperatures than the sun. Sorry.
irisdatacom 3 years ago 4
Pause the video at 1:16. You'll see the Wall Street Journal is drawn from 1996 (it's blurry but legible), but they're talking about it as if it were the 2007 report. The changes in question in 1996... were part of normal peer-review processes (standard procedure).
Also, they confuse the Summary for Policymakers with the actual IPCC report. The "hockey stick" is still there, prominently -- figure 6.10, along with over ten other studies that all reach the same conclusion.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago 2
McIntyre: If the flawed bristlecone pine series are removed, the hockey stick disappears regardless of how the PCs are calculated and regardless of how many are included. The hockey stick shape is not global, it is a local phenomenon associated with eccentric proxies. Mann discovered this long ago and never reported it."
For a graph so widely reported to support AGW it is fraud. If the graph reappeared, it did so WITHOUT supporting comment and analyses. Really, these guys are just dirt bags.
Albertkallal 3 years ago
Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that McIntyre's claim resulted from errors in McIntyre's method (that is, he didn't replicate Mann -- for an explanation why, see tinyurl com/2nq55q). Furthermore, Wahl and Ammann replicate the results from its original data.
This is meaningless, though, because it doesn't address the other independent studies that also reached the same conclusion. McIntyre is strangely silent about these.
The point remains: It's still in the report, and you were wrong.
TempestStormwind 3 years ago
Yes, that clip about the NYT was from 1996 was about corruption in the IPCC. (NOT related to Hockey stick).
More scientists are bailing, and even better is the Post had an article about a scientist who had 1900 summations to the IPCC, and worked for IPCC for 16 years.
That scientist stated the following:
"The IPCC is fundamentally
corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."
The UN is doing damage control at about the rate of one scandal per week!
Albertkallal 3 years ago
Albert,
if you were intellectually honest, you'd concede that TS is correct in saying that the IPCC never did drop the hockey stick. And you say that those that believe in AGW are dogmatic? Take a look in the mirror.
BeachofDreams 3 years ago
When they say it was removed, they talking about the 2nd review. It was put back in, but in a different form completely without prominence (likely due to storm of controversy). So yes, they did remove its original form. The REAL issue here is that hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics (what happened to peer review?). Press, schools, gov etc used this to set public policy. It is poor used car salesman science at the best.
Albertkallal 3 years ago
Actually, the "hockey stick" (that created by Mann in 1998) was only ever included in the third assessment report (and the 4th), and in both it was featured quite prominantly.
Not that this makes it a poster child for global warming. In fact, its point is rather quite mundane: global temperatures are likely warmer today than at any point over the last 600 years. A more poster-worthy graph might be the juxtaposition of tropospheric and stratospheric trends.
BeachofDreams 3 years ago
I did not say assessment, I said the 2nd review (big difference), it was removed. And, no it was not mundane, it was flashed around the world as proof of the chicken little sky is falling. To try and shuffle this off and say it's mundane it is disingenuous on your part. If it's so mundane, then why are even having a debate here?
Albertkallal 3 years ago
In the aftermath of the hockey stick's demolition, some scientists connected to the IPCC have tried to insist that it actually didn't matter that much to their case. Any such attempt to downplay the influence of the graph flies in the face of the print record. Without it the TAR would have looked been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.
Albertkallal 3 years ago
The hockey stick paper was deeply flawed and it contradicted other credible evidence then appearing in the scientific literature. The flaws could have been discovered during the review process under even the most elementary fact-checking. Yet the review process not only allowed this paper through, but made it front-and-centre. No, this can't be simply whitewashed away..
Albertkallal 3 years ago
Do you know what I find ridiculous?
Mann's hockey stick was a FRAUD! and if skeptics had done something of the same magnitude, those people would now be in jail.
Science? Or politics?
alcedias0 4 years ago
The funny thing is that the IPCC is trying to do equally fraudulent things with tthe replacements to the Mann hockey stick - for instance amongst the spaghetti of proxies, there's one by Briffa et al. which stops short in 1950. Why's that? Because the proxy falls - which would be an inconvenient fact for the warmaholics.
minilemur 3 years ago
Patrick Michaels cannot even be honest about his credentials, much less speak objectively. Fred Seitz?get real.
beninmv 4 years ago
You have no disagreements with the issues in the video, but choose to question credentials? Great arguing on your part. Why does one need credentials that the IPCC people are a bunch of used car salesman and crooks? You reserve the right to a simple opinion but not give that right to people in this video? So, accept your credentials and opinion then? If YOUR RULE is you can't have an obvious opinion on something without credentials, then why give yours? (remember this is YOUR rule now).
Albertkallal 4 years ago