The truth of global warming II

BmanMcfly · Mar 5, 2011

mac said:
Whatever you think you've seen is your business. I imagine the things you see are quite filtered. Facts are facts, and peer review is what it is. I agree with the other people you listed on that point.

Peer-review gained through admitted scientific fraud??? ANd you're ok with that???

Here, I've got this situation that you'll love. You see, I'm trying to finish this business deal but because of massive fraud that I've perpetrated, I need 10 grand from you as an investment to finish this multi-million dollar deal, so if you just send me the money I'll share with you the 10's of millions of dollars that will profit. Just remember, I'm a known and admitted fraudster.

Would YOU trust this type of person?? (If so, PM me and I'll tell you how we can complete this deal

)

There is no group here led by anyone. You have a bit of paranoia poking through the rest of your loonyness.

NO, nobody in the history of humanity has ever tried to run a scam on anyone... that's just loonyness.

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
McLean didn't have a response to the paper.
McLean posted a paper with data falsification. He got called out on it. You said they were wrong in their calling out.
Why were they wrong?

HA! I knew it. That you'd be the sucker to step up. I knew one thing for sure. Catawba would lay back, suspecting something was going on and uncertain whether he should deliver another "empirical evidence" speech. How cowardly! mac already got burnt. The others are now bystanders, so the carnage of consequence falls upon you. Since you doubted the sincerity of what I posted here about 3 different times I say...mister iamitter please to respond to this with facts dismissing it all as of no consequence whatsoever and vindicating all the accused:

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore Visit Site
Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page 'Consensus Buster' Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun

Wednesday, December 08, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report
INTRODUCTION:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!]Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

continues at the source
with much, much more documentable evidence.
Ouch!!! How's that for a ton of **** landing in your lap and all your compadres AWOL? What you don't realize is that I've been sitting on this and researched on much of it and helped out. I just wanted to see who in the game of musical GWA chairs, would be left standing without a chair to sit in. How are you doing Dittohead not! taking all this in with interest are you?

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

Hey Catawba, I'm dedicating these two pieces to you, because as they used to say on that '50s TV show...YOU ASKED FOR IT!

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
HA! I knew it. That you'd be the sucker to step up. I knew one thing for sure. Catawba would lay back, suspecting something was going on and uncertain whether he should deliver another "empirical evidence" speech. How cowardly! mac already got burnt. The others are now bystanders, so the carnage of consequence falls upon you. Since you doubted the sincerity of what I posted here about 3 different times I say...mister iamitter please to respond to this with facts dismissing it all as of no consequence whatsoever and vindicating all the accused:

continues at the source
with much, much more documentable evidence.
Ouch!!! How's that for a ton of **** landing in your lap and all your compadres AWOL? What you don't realize is that I've been sitting on this and researched on much of it and helped out. I just wanted to see who in the game of musical GWA chairs, would be left standing without a chair to sit in. How are you doing Dittohead not! taking all this in with interest are you?

Are you aware that the ipcc is not a scientific journal? I've said this many times. If you find an error in an actual journal, I'll respond to it. I'm glad you can ask questions. You quoted my post. Can you answer the question in it?

Catawba · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
HA! I knew it. That you'd be the sucker to step up. I knew one thing for sure. Catawba would lay back, suspecting something was going on and uncertain whether he should deliver another "empirical evidence" speech. How cowardly! mac already got burnt. The others are now bystanders, so the carnage of consequence falls upon you. Since you doubted the sincerity of what I posted here about 3 different times I say...mister iamitter please to respond to this with facts dismissing it all as of no consequence whatsoever and vindicating all the accused:

continues at the source
with much, much more documentable evidence.
Ouch!!! How's that for a ton of **** landing in your lap and all your compadres AWOL? What you don't realize is that I've been sitting on this and researched on much of it and helped out. I just wanted to see who in the game of musical GWA chairs, would be left standing without a chair to sit in. How are you doing Dittohead not! taking all this in with interest are you?

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change"

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Catawba · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
Hey Catawba, I'm dedicating these two pieces to you, because as they used to say on that '50s TV show...YOU ASKED FOR IT!

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

Everybody has opinions, go with them if you wish.

mac · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
Point noted. You lost the debate, if there even ever was a legitimate issue based upon scientific facts to debate, so you post an image with no opinion, no fact, no nothing. See how this debate stuff works mac. By your very action you've admitted defeat.

You''re the only one that get's to do this kind of stuff? Dude, if you're gonna make crazy you're shtick....embrace it all the way!

mac · Mar 5, 2011

BmanMcfly said:
Peer-review gained through admitted scientific fraud??? ANd you're ok with that???

Here, I've got this situation that you'll love. You see, I'm trying to finish this business deal but because of massive fraud that I've perpetrated, I need 10 grand from you as an investment to finish this multi-million dollar deal, so if you just send me the money I'll share with you the 10's of millions of dollars that will profit. Just remember, I'm a known and admitted fraudster.

The majority of scientists believe we are impacting climate change. What a minority of people have done doesn't change that. The respectable scientists that oppose GW theories are very few and far between.

NO, nobody in the history of humanity has ever tried to run a scam on anyone... that's just loonyness.

I was talking about doctorhugo's statement that there is some sort of GW gang here on DP.

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
Are you aware that the ipcc is not a scientific journal? I've said this many times. If you find an error in an actual journal, I'll respond to it. I'm glad you can ask questions. You quoted my post. Can you answer the question in it?

You don't know what the IPCC is do you? Please pay close attention now as some things were changed at the IPCC very quickly after the, shall we say embarassment:
IPCC NOT NEUTRAL OR UNBIASED
IT'S IN THE NEWS EVERY DAY...THE IPCC IS THE LAST WORD ON CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORDING TO AL GORE AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA. I'M NOT GOING TO BAD MOUTH THE IPCC, I'LL LET THEM DO IT FOR THEMSELVES. IF YOU HAD GONE TO THE IPCC WEB SITE YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND THEIR MISSION STATEMENT..., but you would have had to taken a "snapshot" data taken back in May of 2007:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"

NOW READ THE LAST 4 WORDS..."HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE" IN THAT LAST KNOWN MISSION STATEMENT. YOU SEE THEIR WHOLE MISSION STATEMENT IS PREDICATED ON GLOBAL WARMING BEING INDUCED BY MAN KNOWN AS AWG. HOW ABOUT THAT mister iamitter? A TRULY UNBIASED MISSION STATEMENT WOULD LEAVE OUT THE WORDS "HUMAN-INDUCED". IF MAN IS NOT CREATING GLOBAL WARMING THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE IPCC TO EVEN EXIST. THESE 2500 POLITICIANS AND SCIENTISTS WOULD HAVE NO JOB. SO LET ME ASK YOU....IF YOU'RE EARNING YOUR INCOME FROM THE IPCC ARE YOU GOING TO FIND ANYTHING BUT THAT MAN IS TO BLAME FOR GW? THE IPCC IS PROVABLE AS AN AGW(AnthropogenicGlobalWarming) ADVOCACY...PERIOD. END OF THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I'M TAKING YOU TO THE FINAL PART OF THIS JOURNEY INTO DECEIT PAL.

Sometime between then and now THEY changed it AND their website. Wonder why?
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
Now you click on that link, long after the embarassment expecting to find that Mission Statement.
WHAT!
What do you mean it's not there?
What do you mean it's changed?
What do you mean you got a redirect?
Only the IPCC site administrator could do that
So you go to the NEW website they created.
You see no "mission statement" so you enter it in the search box.
Up pops an IPCC site "spider" option for search and you indicate "Phrase search", meaning "mission statement" and...
a 100% rated hit pops up so you figure you've found it, but not so fast.
You found a 100% rated "hit", but wait a second. Accuracy of any hit is based upon "tags" added by the IPCC site administrator/webmaster and they have been used to misdirect you to a dead-end. Let's continue as I show you that hit:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE

the IPCC developing a new "mission statement" for its outreach activities. It strikes us as very unlikely that the intergovernmental nature of the IPCC could result in a more concise and meaningful mission statement such as CNC envisage. Comments
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session25/inf3.pdf - 5,063.9kb

The "tag" is the bait for the search engine spiders that crawl for selected URL content that they read and when "mission statement" is properly encoded it takes that keyword phrase to this dead-end, even though a mission statement isn't cached to this hit content.

Sorry, what you found is a paper from 2006 that actually had nothing to do with any "mission statement". Read the title page. You just confirmed that the IPCC wiped clean their database for any trace of a mission statement that would have applied during the "embarassment". Are you with me on this mister iamitter?

I've just proven the mission statement was wiped clean and a replacement never posted. However, they couldn't wipe clean a "snapshot" taken of that page and its original URL that had been saved for future proof.
Get it or are you still in denial that the IPCC is covering up their tracks?
Why would they do that?
The only answer is that it committed them to verifying and validating with research all data they review and they FAILED TO DO THAT as that "snapshot" I posted early in this comment proves was their obligation. In plain-speak they passed on everything that the global warming alarmists fed to them to give it the appearance of legitimacy by rubber-stamping the garbage that was altered.

BOTTOM LINE sonny. Don't try telling me what the job of the IPCC was. I have the proof here.!

After all this, if you still deny IPCC culpability in validating scientific information it promulgates tell someone else as you're whistling in the dark and I'm no longer listenng.

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

Don't call me sonny and stop talking down to me. Seriously, I'm afraid to be within a few hundred miles of you in case your idiocy is contagious.

I don't argue for the IPCC as I have stated many times before, I argue for the scientific journals, ok?
"Don't try telling me what the job of the IPCC was."
Where did I tell you what it was?
I said what it was NOT.

"IT'S IN THE NEWS EVERY DAY...THE IPCC IS THE LAST WORD ON CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORDING TO AL GORE AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA. "
I don't give a flying **** what Al Gore or the national media says. Apparently, you do.

Stop labeling me with your garbage stick to debating facts. You didn't answer my question and all you proved was that you're capable of posting incomprehensible babble and strawmen.

Really, your entire post was a strawman. Look up how debating works and what logical fallacies are.

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

mac said:
The majority of scientists believe we are impacting climate change.

What "majority"? PROVE IT.

What a minority of people have done doesn't change that.

What "minority"? PROVE IT.

The respectable scientists that oppose GW theories are very few and far between.

"Respectable scientists" Wrong. You're playin' with yourself again. You haven't read a thing of what I've posted today have you or are trying to ignore it and pick up what you consider the eccentricities of my posting style for criticism calculated to distract. I'm merely enjoying making you global warming alarmists look foolish. You haven't a leg to stand on as I've shown how it's all an agenda built upon the assumption of man-made global warming being of significant impact. Being man-made is what was Gore's engine to drive the entire scam. I just hammered down the final nail in that coffin in my preceeding posts.

I was talking about doctorhugo's statement that there is some sort of GW gang here on DP.

I call everyone posting in favor of global warming the "gang" or "crowd" or "bunch" or whatever. So now you want to get hyper-literal to divert away from the TRUTH. Weak option but keep it up...

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

"Sorry, what you found is a paper from 2006 that actually had nothing to do with any "mission statement". Read the title page. You just confirmed that the IPCC wiped clean their database for any trace of a mission statement that would have applied during the "embarassment". Are you with me on this mister iamitter?"
I'm glad that you can't read. The paper was from 2009 that nothing to do with any mission statement, correct. You know why it had no mentions of the IPCC or their mission statement.
Because it wasn't from the IPCC, wasn't related to the IPCC and had absolutely nothing to do with any mission statement.

Congrats on your strawman.

mac · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
What "majority"? PROVE IT.

What "minority"? PROVE IT.

"Respectable scientists" Wrong. You're playin' with yourself again. You haven't read a thing of what I've posted today have you or are trying to ignore it and pick up what you consider the eccentricities of my posting style for criticism calculated to distract. I'm merely enjoying making you global warming alarmists look foolish. You haven't a leg to stand on as I've shown how it's all an agenda built upon the assumption of man-made global warming being of significant impact. Being man-made is what was Gore's engine to drive the entire scam. I just hammered down the final nail in that coffin in my preceeding posts.

I call everyone posting in favor of global warming the "gang" or "crowd" or "bunch" or whatever. So now you want to get hyper-literal to divert away from the TRUTH. Weak option but keep it up...

You haven't posted anything of any real relevance. What you've posted is some tin foil hat stuff. Besides, with all your "fun with fonts" getting through your posts are exceedingly painfull so to be honest, there probably is a fair bit I've skimmed over out of sheer brain trauma.

Write a cohesive post in one font and size and you might get some better responses.

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

Catawba said:
"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change"

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Good. And you've included your old reliable Orestes again too. Let's get to your link which ties into this abstract.
Here I have an excerpted and unaltered comment:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

I don't know why I bother with you Catawba, but I'll hit this quickly as I said I wouldn't continue on this merry-go-round playing your game. All this comment proves is that they depended heavily on the IPCC for information and who knows how far back they started playing fast and loose with the truth. Possibly back to the Clinton-Gore years. This is an embellished regurgitation of your post from earlier on that went thisaway:

So you just choose to ignore this part of that scientific consensus?

" A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one."

Recognize it at all? Yep! Of course you do, your comment #83 from only 6 days ago. C'mon..I recognized the content as soon as you posted it. You get all your stuff from SketpticalScience.com, I know that. How long will you give serious consideration to what this guy

says about anything, it is his site y'know. You're a broken record. Those clowns are afraid to deal with the long-term warming/cooling cycle charts and ONLY use charts and positive post 1900 data charts that show the latter part of this warming cycle and attribute it ALL to being man-made. Funny thing is they completely ignore the simple and TRUE case I made for deep-ocean, core-venting heating effects of the continental shelf tidal currents and their effect on "melting glaciers". You'd agree if you ever looked into it yourself.

Remembering my watchword regarding Words Mean Things. All is not always as it first appears. Here the entire presumption of accuracy is built upon this. "tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". [A brief pause for explanation here about ACC (AnthropogenicClimateChange) to replace AGW(AnthropogenicGlobalWarming), which became all the rage as soon as criticism of the alarmists reached a high crescendo that man was being made the "sole cause", so they change the reference to Climate Change to be deceptively misleading.] A "tenet" is an opinion held to be true. When said opinion is after the "embarassment" there is no legitimacy to said tenets. How could you have not realized that? They are corrupted by manipulation of the truth as I've noted in too many posts here to go back to. This unreal by any measure accounting that 97 to 98% of scientists (or any group for that matter) can agree on ANYTHING NOT PRE-ORDAINED is ridiculous in conception and a damnable lie in the case of IPCC "tenets". It's only accomplished by noting citations, which mostly go back to the outfit that manipulated the facts in the first place, the IPCC.

By their own supporting statement of the makeup of this group that indicated their beliefs PRIOR to this study fully 68% (rounded to nearest % point) or a total of 903 out of 1,372 were convinced before the fact of the TRUTH of the IPCC information and supported it's tenets. So what? They were either hardnose believers or duped by distorted information coming from the IPCC.
And I've already proven by my more recent posts what the agenda was by their original mission statement. All this stuff you post now is relegated to being based upon BAD and ALTERED DATA. **** in, **** out!

On the skeptical science website when one clicks on About Us this is the first paragraph one reads:

About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Excuse me, but this sounds like and looks like when you hit the opening page of a global warming site all set up to debunk criticisms of man-made global warming known as AGW/ACC. But I can dig it with you catawba, what with being an old-dog under the GW porch on PF where I posted a while last year. You had your GW engine cranked up back in '08. You see I knew you, but you didn't know who I was before doctorhugo registered on that site..HA! Ironically we didn't bang heads there much as we agreed on many other issues. It's fun though jerkin' your porch chain here. Goodnight!

ptif219 · Mar 5, 2011

mac said:
My response to the newsbuster article is that it is the opinion of a credible person with a lot of experience. It is these opinions which keep me from going chicken little like so many have, however, this is only an opinion. It quotes no real study nor refutes any other specific study. It ranks as worthy of consideration.

He shows facts

ptif219 · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
McLean didn't have a response to the paper.
McLean posted a paper with data falsification. He got called out on it. You said they were wrong in their calling out.
Why were they wrong?

Gw telling others about data falsification Thats funny |216|

They came up with lame excuses that basically said you did not look at it the way we did so you must be wrong

doctorhugo · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
"Sorry, what you found is a paper from 2006 that actually had nothing to do with any "mission statement". Read the title page. You just confirmed that the IPCC wiped clean their database for any trace of a mission statement that would have applied during the "embarassment". Are you with me on this mister iamitter?"
I'm glad that you can't read. The paper was from 2009 that nothing to do with any mission statement, correct. You know why it had no mentions of the IPCC or their mission statement.
Because it wasn't from the IPCC, wasn't related to the IPCC and had absolutely nothing to do with any mission statement.

Congrats on your strawman.

I'll give you a break and lay off the "sonny" reference, but you didn't do what I said. I asked you once before to pay close attention and you must have thought I was kidding. I was correct about the report that came up and it was dtd "26-28 April 2006". You appear to have failed to follow instructions and I'm NOT talking down to you. I said this:

You see no "mission statement" so you enter it in the search box.
Up pops an IPCC site "spider" option for search and you indicate "Phrase search", meaning "mission statement" and...
a 100% rated hit pops up so you figure you've found it, but not so fast.

Did you do the search from the NEW ICCP site upper r/corner box. That was the one I was talking about all the time. If you did, you were then confronted with three search options and you didn't hit "phrase search" (with "mission statement in the search box). I know. I just did it again and it's as I originally stated, exactly so.

It is no strawman or any other form of diversion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - Don't get all nervous and jerky on me, but you live only about 70 miles from me. I checked it out. I could meet you for coffee in an hour and a half! HAAAA.

ptif219 · Mar 5, 2011

iamitter said:
Are you aware that the ipcc is not a scientific journal? I've said this many times. If you find an error in an actual journal, I'll respond to it. I'm glad you can ask questions. You quoted my post. Can you answer the question in it?

Yet in this world they are considered the leading authority. You dismiss them because you know they have credibility problems

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

ptif219 said:
Gw telling others about data falsification Thats funny |216|

They came up with lame excuses that basically said you did not look at it the way we did so you must be wrong

Really? That's what they did? Where exactly did they do that?

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

ptif219 said:
Yet in this world they are considered the leading authority. You dismiss them because you know they have credibility problems

Not really, they're not an authority, they're publicity.

iamitter · Mar 5, 2011

doctorhugo said:
I'll give you a break and lay off the "sonny" reference, but you didn't do what I said. I asked you once before to pay close attention and you must have thought I was kidding. I was correct about the report that came up and it was dtd "26-28 April 2006". You appear to have failed to follow instructions and I'm NOT talking down to you. I said this:Did you do the search from the NEW ICCP site upper r/corner box. That was the one I was talking about all the time. If you did, you were then confronted with three search options and you didn't hit "phrase search" (with "mission statement in the search box). I know. I just did it again and it's as I originally stated, exactly so.

It is no strawman or any other form of diversion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - Don't get all nervous and jerky on me, but you live only about 70 miles from me. I checked it out. I could meet you for coffee in an hour and a half! HAAAA.

The report I posted to was a response to an academic paper printed in 2009. Explain to me how how they could have responded in 2006.

No, I didn't do the search. You know why? Because I don't give a **** about the IPCC. You're the one obsessed with it. I've said this multiple times. I don't consider it an authority and I dont see why you do.

Catawba · Mar 6, 2011

doctorhugo said:
Good. And you've included your old reliable Orestes again too. Let's get to your link which ties into this abstract.
Here I have an excerpted and unaltered comment:
I don't know why I bother with you Catawba, but I'll hit this quickly as I said I wouldn't continue on this merry-go-round playing your game. All this comment proves is that they depended heavily on the IPCC for information and who knows how far back they started playing fast and loose with the truth. Possibly back to the Clinton-Gore years. This is an embellished regurgitation of your post from earlier on that went thisaway:
Recognize it at all? Yep! Of course you do, your comment #83 from only 6 days ago. C'mon..I recognized the content as soon as you posted it. You get all your stuff from SketpticalScience.com, I know that. How long will you give serious consideration to what this guy

says about anything, it is his site y'know. You're a broken record. Those clowns are afraid to deal with the long-term warming/cooling cycle charts and ONLY use charts and positive post 1900 data charts that show the latter part of this warming cycle and attribute it ALL to being man-made. Funny thing is they completely ignore the simple and TRUE case I made for deep-ocean, core-venting heating effects of the continental shelf tidal currents and their effect on "melting glaciers". You'd agree if you ever looked into it yourself.

Remembering my watchword regarding Words Mean Things. All is not always as it first appears. Here the entire presumption of accuracy is built upon this. "tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". [A brief pause for explanation here about ACC (AnthropogenicClimateChange) to replace AGW(AnthropogenicGlobalWarming), which became all the rage as soon as criticism of the alarmists reached a high crescendo that man was being made the "sole cause", so they change the reference to Climate Change to be deceptively misleading.] A "tenet" is an opinion held to be true. When said opinion is after the "embarassment" there is no legitimacy to said tenets. How could you have not realized that? They are corrupted by manipulation of the truth as I've noted in too many posts here to go back to. This unreal by any measure accounting that 97 to 98% of scientists (or any group for that matter) can agree on ANYTHING NOT PRE-ORDAINED is ridiculous in conception and a damnable lie in the case of IPCC "tenets". It's only accomplished by noting citations, which mostly go back to the outfit that manipulated the facts in the first place, the IPCC.

By their own supporting statement of the makeup of this group that indicated their beliefs PRIOR to this study fully 68% (rounded to nearest % point) or a total of 903 out of 1,372 were convinced before the fact of the TRUTH of the IPCC information and supported it's tenets. So what? They were either hardnose believers or duped by distorted information coming from the IPCC.
And I've already proven by my more recent posts what the agenda was by their original mission statement. All this stuff you post now is relegated to being based upon BAD and ALTERED DATA. **** in, **** out!

On the skeptical science website when one clicks on About Us this is the first paragraph one reads:

Excuse me, but this sounds like and looks like when you hit the opening page of a global warming site all set up to debunk criticisms of man-made global warming known as AGW/ACC. But I can dig it with you catawba, what with being an old-dog under the GW porch on PF where I posted a while last year. You had your GW engine cranked up back in '08. You see I knew you, but you didn't know who I was before doctorhugo registered on that site..HA! Ironically we didn't bang heads there much as we agreed on many other issues. It's fun though jerkin' your porch chain here. Goodnight!

Couldn't find anything of substance to comment on in your long rambling post. Sorry!

BmanMcfly · Mar 6, 2011

mac said:
The majority of scientists believe we are impacting climate change. What a minority of people have done doesn't change that. The respectable scientists that oppose GW theories are very few and far between.

Ya... and there's admitted fraud that's gone on, there's been DOZENS of examples of CLEAR FRAUD... and in the face of scam you come out and declare : "YES. Prince Ungabunga of zimbabwe is going to make me a rich man after I send him money."

Look, it's one thing to say 'ok, I believe these people over those people'... sure.. but when 'these people' are effectively ADMITTED fraudsters, what compels you to trust them so?

I was talking about doctorhugo's statement that there is some sort of GW gang here on DP.

I doubt any sort of actual 'gang', but you guys got each others backs even on the most asinine of assertions.

iamitter said:
Don't call me sonny and stop talking down to me. Seriously, I'm afraid to be within a few hundred miles of you in case your idiocy is contagious.

I don't argue for the IPCC as I have stated many times before, I argue for the scientific journals, ok?
"Don't try telling me what the job of the IPCC was."
Where did I tell you what it was?
I said what it was NOT.

"IT'S IN THE NEWS EVERY DAY...THE IPCC IS THE LAST WORD ON CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORDING TO AL GORE AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA. "
I don't give a flying **** what Al Gore or the national media says. Apparently, you do.

Stop labeling me with your garbage stick to debating facts. You didn't answer my question and all you proved was that you're capable of posting incomprehensible babble and strawmen.

Really, your entire post was a strawman. Look up how debating works and what logical fallacies are.

Well, the IPCC is the centralized organization of climate science... the agregator of climate journals... so, his points about the IPCC really are valid... even if you're not seeing the relevance.

iamitter · Mar 6, 2011

No, they're the ones who do the publicity. They do absolutely no research.
Unless he's finding errors in climate journals, I don't care. So far every climate journal article has been "debunked" by him by saying, SEE the IPCC lies, therefore these guys are lieing!!!
Which is a strawman.

BmanMcfly · Mar 6, 2011

iamitter said:
No, they're the ones who do the publicity. They do absolutely no research.

And how many of the IPCC's scientific groups have been CAUGHT in some form of fraud, lies, distortions, or manipulations of data??

The IPCC KNOWS about these matters AND CONTINUES to support the case...

Unless he's finding errors in climate journals, I don't care. So far every climate journal article has been "debunked" by him by saying, SEE the IPCC lies, therefore these guys are lieing!!!
Which is a strawman.

Well, look at EVERY STUDY that comes out supporting AGW (at least the ones I've examined personally in the area of 100% of them) are VERIFIABLE flawed or false reports... OR they require SUCH HIGH concentrations of CO2 that it's nearing the point where CO2 levels would become TOXIC.

Beyond that, I've YET TO SEE a CLEAR link of CAUSATION. There is a correlation and on a small scale you can show that CO2 has an IMPACT on the climate... but EVEN THEN Water vapor makes up 95% of GHG's... and water vapor cannot be turned on or off... and nobody seems to argue how water is causing global warming.

The truth of global warming II

Active member

Active member

Sleeper Agent

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Active member

Sleeper Agent

Active member

Sleeper Agent

Active member

Active member

Sleeper Agent

Sleeper Agent

Sleeper Agent

Disappointed Evolutionist

Sleeper Agent