Michael Mann is a slimy little lying weasel and is getting ripped to shreds.

originally posted by: amazing
What's really funny is that there are literally thousands of Scientists and researchers writing papers, publishing articles, submitting scientific evidence and basically telling us that the earth is getting warming and that man's pollution is one of the leading culprits.

This thread shows, I think, one of the biggest problems. Of all of those thousands of scientists, we're singling out one "Mann" and showing his faults and calling him a liar. Will we do the same thing with the other thousands of scientists that have the same view as this "Mann"? If not, why not?

If they sit before a congressional panel and lie, yes they will be called out for it. Pretty simple isn't it?

I think what is amazing is that I answer your post and you don't do anything but change the subject to suit your agenda.

basically telling us that the earth is getting warming and that man's pollution is one of the leading culprits.

Here's your 97 percent consensus, which was brought up in the hearing and shown to be false.

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: amazing
What's really funny is that there are literally thousands of Scientists and researchers writing papers, publishing articles, submitting scientific evidence and basically telling us that the earth is getting warming and that man's pollution is one of the leading culprits.

This thread shows, I think, one of the biggest problems. Of all of those thousands of scientists, we're singling out one "Mann" and showing his faults and calling him a liar. Will we do the same thing with the other thousands of scientists that have the same view as this "Mann"? If not, why not?

If they sit before a congressional panel and lie, yes they will be called out for it. Pretty simple isn't it?

I think what is amazing is that I answer your post and you don't do anything but change the subject to suit your agenda.

What do you mean? I don't have an agenda...I just think it's prudent to listen to scientists. I didn't mean to not answer your question...what was it again. My apologies.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: amazing
What's really funny is that there are literally thousands of Scientists and researchers writing papers, publishing articles, submitting scientific evidence and basically telling us that the earth is getting warming and that man's pollution is one of the leading culprits.

This thread shows, I think, one of the biggest problems. Of all of those thousands of scientists, we're singling out one "Mann" and showing his faults and calling him a liar. Will we do the same thing with the other thousands of scientists that have the same view as this "Mann"? If not, why not?

If they sit before a congressional panel and lie, yes they will be called out for it. Pretty simple isn't it?

I think what is amazing is that I answer your post and you don't do anything but change the subject to suit your agenda.

What do you mean? I don't have an agenda...I just think it's prudent to listen to scientists. I didn't mean to not answer your question...what was it again. My apologies.

nvm, it was in regards to the ice age vs global warming which is irrelevant anyways.

Better to speak to the supposed scientific consensus, which I have in my previous post.

That's lifted straight from Cooks paper by the way, it shows how misleading the headlines are.

a reply to: amazing

1934 was the hottest year on record for the United states.

If you can't stand it now with air conditionings so freely availablle, it must of been hell back then.

My point is that so far - after 30 years of climate alarmism - we still haven't seen anything outside the normal natural variation of earths climate

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


To Amazing:

however, this thread isn't about climate change, its about Micheal Mann's behavior when testifying to Congress.

I take your point about ripping into Micheal Mann and would we do it to other scientist

Fact is that I don't think I can remember a scientist whose science is as shoddy as Micheal Mann.

From climategate we learned that the hockey stick graph was created by Micheal Mann. He used tree rings to establish temperature throughout Earths history.

To make the stick part of the graph, he pretended that the Medieval Warming Period was not global in nature. When he got up to the 1960s however the tree ring showed a real decline in temperature. The real world was rising in temperature.

To hide the decline in temperature as shown by the tree rings, he stopped using the tree rings and grafted instrumental temperatures to make the blade part of the hockey stick.

This should have been enough to get him laughed out of his profession. Instead, alarmists decided that the evidence should be ignored and maybe it would all go away.. The intergovernmental panel on climate change stopped using his hockey stick graph.

Micheal Mann pretends it all didn't happen.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

1934 was the hottest year on record for the United states.

If you can't stand it now with air conditionings so freely availablle, it must of been hell back then.

My point is that so far - after 30 years of climate alarmism - we still haven't seen anything outside the normal natural variation of earths climate

Except that according to NASA 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998 and according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989. Keeping in mind that this is global average and that for certain areas like Las Vegas each year is breaking records. It's hell on earth now. Come visit me in July and we'll drive around and do some yard work and you can share my $400 a month power bill.

a reply to: amazing

But it is still within the normal climate variation. The earth gets hotter and it gets colder. And although activists are screaming about CO2, the fact is the fact. Its all with normal climate variation.

The artic ice has melted before. Las Vegas and India was hot before. there have been storms, tornados, hurricanes, droughts and floods before. Nothing is more intense. Nothing really has changed.

Wake me up when something happens that is outside natural variability

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

1934 was the hottest year on record for the United states.

If you can't stand it now with air conditionings so freely availablle, it must of been hell back then.

My point is that so far - after 30 years of climate alarmism - we still haven't seen anything outside the normal natural variation of earths climate

Except that according to NASA 2005 remains the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998 and according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989. Keeping in mind that this is global average and that for certain areas like Las Vegas each year is breaking records. It's hell on earth now. Come visit me in July and we'll drive around and do some yard work and you can share my $400 a month power bill.

How complete do you think the instrumental record is for Africa in the 1930's?

a reply to: D8Tee

not to mention NOAA "adjustment" of historical ocean temperatures by adjusting the most accurate buoy temperatures so that they match the less accurate ship intake and bucket temperatures.

NOAA - working hard to make your history colder so that you think your present and future is hotter!

a reply to: amazing

its interesting though - according to micheal mann's temperature, man is only responsible for a termperature rise of 0.2 degrees (Celcius) since the 1950s.

Two tenths of a degree in almost 70 years...boy that sure is cause for hysteria and $400.0 month electricity bills!

a reply to: D8Tee

a reply to: Greven

This is really easy stuff to understand. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution that doesn't involve millions of deaths. A self-inflicted humanitarian and ecological crises; the fossil fuels that propelled our exponential population growth may well kill us.

Whats your solution if you called the shots?

a reply to: D8Tee
Same solution to give to someone who has fallen off of a cliff - don't fall in the first place.

Alas, we likely were last on the cliff a few decades ago.

At least there is some comedy to be had whilst falling, as the fall is quite long:

a reply to: Greven

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.


You have changed your mindset from what you posted at the start of 2017?
why?

originally posted by: Greven

The only real solution is to immediately shut off all fossil fuel emissions.
I don't expect many people would do that, though. People have to eat, they have to heat their residences...

originally posted by: D8Tee
What would you expect the death toll from that to be?

originally posted by: Greven
That's a hard thing to quantify. I would suspect at least a billion to perish in a few years if such a thing were to happen.

We're really pretty screwed. Either a lot of people die in the short term, or a whole lot more people die in the long term.

a reply to: D8Tee

You continue to harp on my posts in another thread entirely for unknown reasons.

There has been no change. You are attempting to fit my past answers to one question into another question entirely.

Recall, you asked in this thread what I would do.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

You continue to harp on my posts in another thread entirely for unknown reasons.

There has been no change. You are attempting to fit my past answers to one question into another question entirely.

Recall, you asked in this thread what I would do.

Not harping on your posts, I am quoting you. Your words not mine buddy.

Yes, my words - were a solution to question of how to stop climate change - a solution which has dire implications.
You asked here what I would do. This is a different question. I know you speak English, so you can no longer pretend to misunderstand.

Oh and your edit -

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.

It almost amazes me the wicked depths you will stoop to, defaming my character previously (and trying to do so again here) - now accusing me of getting science from TV, when I explicitly linked that in jest.

You do this while ignoring the physics - ignoring realty - because you just cannot deal with it. You cannot respond to the very simple physics underlying the concern.

Instead you stoop to personal insults and attacks. Have you no sense of decency?

originally posted by: Greven
Yes, my words - answers that were the solution to climate change - a solution which has dire implications.
You asked here what I would do. This is a different question. I know you speak English, so you can no longer pretend to misunderstand.

Oh and your edit -

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.

It almost amazes me the wicked depths you will stoop to, defaming my character previously (and trying to do so again here) - now accusing me of getting science from TV, when I explicitly linked that in jest.

You do this while ignoring the physics - ignoring realty - because you just cannot deal with it. You cannot respond to the very simple physics underlying the concern.

Instead you stoop to personal insults and attacks. Have you no sense of decency?

How can a direct quote from you be defamation?

How can a direct quote from you be a personal insult and attack?

That is not logical.

I see people quoting other posters here ALL THE TIME.

Where is the rules against doing that Greven?

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
Yes, my words - answers that were the solution to climate change - a solution which has dire implications.
You asked here what I would do. This is a different question. I know you speak English, so you can no longer pretend to misunderstand.

Oh and your edit -

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.

It almost amazes me the wicked depths you will stoop to, defaming my character previously (and trying to do so again here) - now accusing me of getting science from TV, when I explicitly linked that in jest.

You do this while ignoring the physics - ignoring realty - because you just cannot deal with it. You cannot respond to the very simple physics underlying the concern.

Instead you stoop to personal insults and attacks. Have you no sense of decency?

How can a direct quote from you be defamation?

How can a direct quote from you be a personal insult and attack?

That is not logical.

Hi, here's your quote:

originally posted by: D8Tee
You have changed your mindset from what you posted at the start of 2017?
why?

Your purpose was clear.
Do you want me to explain it in more detail to anyone who really cares about your transgressions?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
Yes, my words - answers that were the solution to climate change - a solution which has dire implications.
You asked here what I would do. This is a different question. I know you speak English, so you can no longer pretend to misunderstand.

Oh and your edit -

Your interview is a scene from a fictional HBO program, it is not relevant. Glad I don't get my science from TV shows, continue with your mission Greven.

It almost amazes me the wicked depths you will stoop to, defaming my character previously (and trying to do so again here) - now accusing me of getting science from TV, when I explicitly linked that in jest.

You do this while ignoring the physics - ignoring realty - because you just cannot deal with it. You cannot respond to the very simple physics underlying the concern.

Instead you stoop to personal insults and attacks. Have you no sense of decency?

How can a direct quote from you be defamation?

How can a direct quote from you be a personal insult and attack?

That is not logical.

Hi, here's your quote:

originally posted by: D8Tee
You have changed your mindset from what you posted at the start of 2017?
why?

Your purpose was clear.
Do you want me to explain it in more detail to anyone who really cares about your transgressions?

Yes explain in more detail.

You don't want to stop climate change if you were in charge?

Nice to see you edited in the part about comedy into your video link after the fact...

Would you like to speak to the coverage of the African continent, or rather it's lack of coverage as far as historical temperature data goes?

Your HBO video did not cover that.