Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists

The video is being uploaded as it is being a subject of censorship by climate scientist Michael Mann - whether the data of his was forged or not the satire must not be censored!

Read more: http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.co...

• Category

  People & Blogs

[AlpineMusicSchool]

Michael Mann sucks hard.

[R0773N]

Michael Mann also lied about being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. The Nobel committee said that despite his claims in his court briefing, he never won the Nobel Prize.

[cbrhawk1]

(cont)

Deforestation, overfishing, invasive species, topsoil erosion, particulates, water pollution, etc...

Instead of focusing problems that we can PROVE are harmful, you focus on a theory based on thin evidence for which there is NO evidence of it being harmful. The propagandists like you focus on one thing in order to raise global warming above every single environmental problem: Drop polar bears from the sky and scare the public!

Just like the Nazis did.You try to take power the same way.

[cbrhawk1]

lol, you're just basically repeating the Democrat party platform. Congratulations, you are a sheep. Want a medal? You don't have to work to get it!

But, seriously, people who support this climate change nonsense have absolutely no care about the environment. This isn't about environment, but about the government gaining control. How do I know this? Simple. People who talk about climate change do not talk about other environmental concerns.(cont)

[cbrhawk1]

I love how you basically state the Democrat party's platform almost word by word. Congratulations, you're a sheep. Do you want a burger king crown to go with that? You don't have to work for it!

You know what's really funny? Why are Democrats so focused on climate change? What about Deforestation? Invasive species? The Great Pacific Garbage Patches? Particulates? Overfishing? Habitat encroachment? (cont)

[Herman47]

The intense selfishness and shortsightedness of you and your fellow conservatives will be condemned by the future generations that you don't give a shit about.

TO. YOUR. EVERLASTING. SHAME.

[cristop5]

I think it is important to be transparent about how the data is dealt with and presented. But grafting instrumental data onto proxy data in order to accurately depict a continuous temperature record is not fraud.

Nor is it "making up data" or "fudging the numbers" etc as this moronic video would have you believe.

[cristop5]

The NH tree ring data is regarded as reasonable for dates prior to ~1960. Up until this time it tracks the instrumental record reasonably well, and is also in step with other proxy data. Google the "tree ring divergence" problem.

[docmabuse66]

But the absence of the recent warming in the tree ring data implies, that the rest of the data (the past) very likely must also be wrong, so that MWP and LIA peaks are illustrated much too small on the left part of the hockeystick.

Do you think that it's no fraud to attach measured data onto a set of proven bad data - in which many decades of warming were completly missing - so that the past look much more constant?

When the data is not trustable...better not use it! (2/2)

[docmabuse66]

In my answer to your first post, I refered to the point that it must have been obvious for the hockeystick contributing climate scientists, that if their tree ring data was not trustable for the recent time, the dataset could also not be trustable for the past.

They explained that they deleted the decline and exchange it with measured data, because the real temperature increase after 1960 was not visible in the tree ring data. (1/2)