• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eschatology and Global Warming

Tsk tsk. A German scientist faking evidence and attacking a Jewish scientist for participation in a conspiracy. Hmmm.

[h=2]PIK Scientist Rahmstorf Goes After Hebrew University’s Nir Shaviv …But Gets Caught Fudging Inconvenient Data[/h]By P Gosselin on 18. January 2019
[h=3]Stefan Rahmstorf caught redhanded manipulating temperature charts[/h]By Michael Krueger
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Three days ago, climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf published an article at his KlimaLounge blog on the hearing of Jewish climate scientist Nir Shaviv in the German Bundestag concerning the Climate Change Conference in Katowice.
Accuses Shaviv of presenting “outlandish theories”
There he describes Shaviv as a “climate skeptic” with outlandish theories and who is courted by the fossil lobby and AfD Party. During the hearing, the German Left party even accused Shaviv of obviously being paid to publish climate-denialism. Stefan Rahmstorf went even further, claiming, “This is a targeted misleading of the layperson audience”.
Just who is misleading whom, I would like to pursue here. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. A German scientist faking evidence and attacking a Jewish scientist for participation in a conspiracy. Hmmm.

[h=2]PIK Scientist Rahmstorf Goes After Hebrew University’s Nir Shaviv …But Gets Caught Fudging Inconvenient Data[/h]By P Gosselin on 18. January 2019
[h=3]Stefan Rahmstorf caught redhanded manipulating temperature charts[/h]By Michael Krueger
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Three days ago, climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf published an article at his KlimaLounge blog on the hearing of Jewish climate scientist Nir Shaviv in the German Bundestag concerning the Climate Change Conference in Katowice.
Accuses Shaviv of presenting “outlandish theories”
There he describes Shaviv as a “climate skeptic” with outlandish theories and who is courted by the fossil lobby and AfD Party. During the hearing, the German Left party even accused Shaviv of obviously being paid to publish climate-denialism. Stefan Rahmstorf went even further, claiming, “This is a targeted misleading of the layperson audience”.
Just who is misleading whom, I would like to pursue here. . . .
Click to expand...

Translated by the same P Gosselin whom you have previously accused of making fundamental translation blunders, I see. How do you know he hasn't screwed up again here?
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. A German scientist faking evidence and attacking a Jewish scientist for participation in a conspiracy. Hmmm.

[h=2]PIK Scientist Rahmstorf Goes After Hebrew University’s Nir Shaviv …But Gets Caught Fudging Inconvenient Data[/h]By P Gosselin on 18. January 2019
[h=3]Stefan Rahmstorf caught redhanded manipulating temperature charts[/h]By Michael Krueger
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Rahmstorf-Manipulation.jpg
Three days ago, climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf published an article at his KlimaLounge blog on the hearing of Jewish climate scientist Nir Shaviv in the German Bundestag concerning the Climate Change Conference in Katowice.
Accuses Shaviv of presenting “outlandish theories”
There he describes Shaviv as a “climate skeptic” with outlandish theories and who is courted by the fossil lobby and AfD Party. During the hearing, the German Left party even accused Shaviv of obviously being paid to publish climate-denialism. Stefan Rahmstorf went even further, claiming, “This is a targeted misleading of the layperson audience”.
Just who is misleading whom, I would like to pursue here. . . .
Click to expand...

Default mindlessly copied and pasted dishonest conspiracy blog post to distort the facts.

Your only personal comment is an outlandish ad hominem accusation of antisemitism and a false claim of a scientist 'faking evidence'.

You've sunk to a new low. Really pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I checked the work.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. It's obvious you never "check" anything you copy and paste from conspiracy blogs. I doubt you even read more than the titles of the blog posts.
 
Quaestio said:
Default mindlessly copied and pasted dishonest conspiracy blog post to distort the facts.

Your only personal comment is an outlandish ad hominem accusation of antisemitism and a false claim of a scientist 'faking evidence'.

You've sunk to a new low. Really pathetic.
Click to expand...

Quaestio said:
Bollocks. It's obvious you never "check" anything you copy and paste from conspiracy blogs. I doubt you even read more than the titles of the blog posts.
Click to expand...

“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate cash[/FONT]
[h=1]Dark Green Money Reveals Vast Self-Dealing Network in Canada’s Climate Change “Leadership” like Green New Deal Proposal says Friends of Science[/h][FONT=&quot]From PRWEB “Dark Green Money” is a new report by Robert Lyman with a revealing glimpse of the vast self-dealing network of foreign billionaire foundation funding environmental groups’ climate change initiatives, says Friends of Science Society, much like what is being proposed in the US for the Green New Deal. Dark Green Money CALGARY, Alberta…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

Glad you can admit it.
 
In pursuit of the millennium, anything can be rationalized.

[FONT=&quot]environment, pexels, green, scheming" data-medium-file="https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pexels-photo-1268480-300x200.jpeg" data-large-file="https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pexels-photo-1268480-720x480.jpeg" data-lazy-loaded="1" style="height: auto; max-width: 100%; border: 0px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 1px 4px; float: left; width: 460px;">[/FONT]
[h=1]When environmentalism becomes corruption – Part 1[/h][FONT=&quot]Environmental principles are too often used to stop lawful, responsible, vital land uses Craig Liukko All across the United States, private property rights are under assault – assault by state and federal legislators and regulators, environmentalist groups, wealthy liberal foundations, corporations and other special interests, often acting in coordination or collusion with one another. They…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]environment, pexels, green, scheming" data-medium-file="https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pexels-photo-1268480-300x200.jpeg" data-large-file="https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pexels-photo-1268480-720x480.jpeg" data-lazy-loaded="1" style="height: auto; max-width: 100%; border: 0px; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 1px 4px;">Environment[/FONT]
[h=1]When environmentalism becomes corruption – Part 2[/h][FONT=&quot]We need rational rules to protect environmental values – and meet essential societal needs Craig Liukko What does this country do for essential everyday minerals, when ideological bureaucrats have closed most mines and declared them “Permanently Closed”? In Colorado, it appears the “solution” is to have thousands of people sitting around idle, smoking pot, because…
[/FONT]
 
Santer remains in pursuit of the millennium, and for him the ends justify the means.

[FONT=&quot]Opinion[/FONT]
[h=1]A history of Dr. Ben Santer and his IPCC “trick”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Santer remains in pursuit of the millennium, and for him the ends justify the means.

[FONT=&quot]Opinion[/FONT]
[h=1]A history of Dr. Ben Santer and his IPCC “trick”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog
 
Jack Hays said:
Santer remains in pursuit of the millennium, and for him the ends justify the means.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/a-history-of-dr-ben-santer-and-his-ipcc-trick/"]
wpid-imag0106.jpg
[/URL]Opinion[/FONT]
[h=1]A history of Dr. Ben Santer and his IPCC “trick”[/h][FONT="]Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Regading the infamous quote from the climate-gate emails:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.​

I read that, and Dr. Tim Ball and others obsess over the word "Trick". I use tricks to get results that I want
and you probably do too. Tricks, short cuts, work arounds - call 'em what you want, a trick isn't necessarily
an underhanded act. But the operative work in that quote isn't "Trick" it's "Hide" Now hiding something isn't
always a negative either, but in this case is sure is. You can't get much more out of the use of that word other
than they were meaning to deceive.
 
Steve Case said:
But the operative work in that quote isn't "Trick" it's "Hide" Now hiding something isn't
always a negative either, but in this case is sure is. You can't get much more out of the use of that word other
than they were meaning to deceive.
Click to expand...

Really?? You do realize that the decline that they hid... DIDN'T HAPPEN!!
 
Buzz said:
Really?? You do realize that the decline that they hid... DIDN'T HAPPEN!!
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
Shhh.

He’s living his own little private fantasy.

And you can’t reason a man out of something he didn’t reason himself in to.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have spliced the two time series if it didn't happen, besides,
Skeptical Science says it happened:

Tree-ring Proxies and The Divergence Problem
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed
or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.​

The issue is why they didn't mention that they spliced the two data sets.
When you make changes to the record, you make note of it so that those
who come after you can figure out what you did. When you learned how to
balance your checkbook in high school, You were taught to annotate any
corrections. As far as I know there wasn't any note anywhere as to what
the climate scientists did. The only reason we know about it is through the
"Climategate Emails".
 
Steve Case said:
They wouldn't have spliced the two time series if it didn't happen, besides,
Skeptical Science says it happened:

Tree-ring Proxies and The Divergence Problem
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed
or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.​

The issue is why they didn't mention that they spliced the two data sets.
When you make changes to the record, you make note of it so that those
who come after you can figure out what you did. When you learned how to
balance your checkbook in high school, You were taught to annotate any
corrections. As far as I know there wasn't any note anywhere as to what
the climate scientists did. The only reason we know about it is through the
"Climategate Emails".
Click to expand...

Weird that you don’t understand that we have actual temperature records from that time.

Guess denier blogs don’t mention that part.
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird that you don’t understand that we have actual temperature records from that time.

Guess denier blogs don’t mention that part.
Click to expand...

That's not the point, they made the splice and didn't make a note of it. At the very least, they are sloppy.
 
Steve Case said:
That's not the point, they made the splice and didn't make a note of it. At the very least, they are sloppy.
Click to expand...

They actually clearly explained the methodology in the paper.

But you wouldnt know that, you read denier stuff.
 
Threegoofs said:
They actually clearly explained the methodology in the paper.

But you wouldnt know that, you read denier stuff.
Click to expand...

Judith Curry’s discussion of Hide the Decline here and here

Bad science and/or dishonesty?
. . . There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that resulted in the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom