Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

If you are engaging in agw denial proof of scientists faking data to show lower temperatures would not prove your point that they are lying that agw is occurring.

The hockey stick has been proven a fraud. This is accepted fact. They lowered and raised temperatures.

[Jerome]

The fraud is common.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Jerome

The hockey stick has been proven a fraud. This is accepted fact. They lowered and raised temperatures.

No it's not, you are full of shit.


Post proof or retract, you lying piece of shit.

[beyelzu]

Burden of proof is on the dipshit who thinks that 97 percent of experts in the field are wrong.

[Jerome]

Faking data is not science.

Mann plotted a thousand years of proxy data as reliable, and then threw out the post-1960 proxy data – because they didn’t show the warming he was out to prove.

The proxies showed exactly what thermometers did at the time – before Hansen altered the thermometer data.

[beyelzu]

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

As to others finding the hockey stick

"MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).
- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#sthash.H52pO4Rc.dpuf"

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Burden of proof is on the dipshit who thinks that 97 percent of experts in the field are wrong.

That is a bullshit stat, and you don't even have the claim correct.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Post proof or retract, you lying piece of shit.

[Jerome]

Here is what the IPCC published in 1990:



Here is what the IPCC published in 1996:



Was there time travel that allowed them to collect new past data from another dimension?

[Jerome]

If the data don't fit, you must adjust it until it looks scary.

[Jerome]

Bey, is the hockey stick a fraud, or was the IPCC presenting a fraud in 1990?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

From what I can tell CliFlo was created in 1992. How is it they own the temperature data collected in 1892?

It seems this is a crown owed corporation. Is that private or public?

Ownership of IP can be transferred, obviously.

NIWA is Government-owned, and was spun out of a Government department in the 90s by a bunch of pricks who thought Government shouldn't run things and everything ought to be turned into some sort of pseudo-corporate model (if it couldn't be outright privatised). I'd rather the data was just publicly available as commons, but the capitalist agenda triumphed on this one.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html
Knock yourself out

Jerome, a question: Under your preferred libertarian system, who would collect, collate and distribute temperature data? Would it be publicly available, or would people have to pay to access it?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Here is what the IPCC published in 1990:
Here is what the IPCC published in 1996:

Since you clearly don't know how to read graphs, here I did a quick composite of these two graphs based on the X axis,

IPCC_1990_FAR_chapter_7_fig_7.1(c).png

[Jerome]

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by...

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Here is what the IPCC published in 1990:

Which is a schematic (i.e. not a data series) of Central England temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=338

The IPCC cocked up in 1990 by calling it global. Things have improved since then.

Seriously, Jerome, this stuff is stale. I stopped really following the climate stuff closely some five years ago, and most of what you come up with was debunked before that. Can't you at least find us some fresh bait rather than this smelly old stuff?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Ari

Since you clearly don't know how to read graphs, here I did a quick composite of these two graphs based on the X axis,

Disappearing data that doesn't fit the claims!!!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

NIWA is Government-owned, and was spun out of a Government department in the 90s by a bunch of pricks who thought Government shouldn't run things and everything ought to be turned into some sort of pseudo-corporate model (if it couldn't be outright privatised). I'd rather the data was just publicly available as commons, but the capitalist agenda triumphed on this one.

So how does that work? How do they make a profit?

How did they get ownership of data collect in 1892?

Jerome, a question: Under your preferred libertarian system, who would collect, collate and distribute temperature data? Would it be publicly available, or would people have to pay to access it?

I think the sciences should be publicly funded to a limited extent.

[Ari]

You're right! Where's the data from before 900AD?
I want answers now!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

Seriously, Jerome, this stuff is stale.

Fraud is fraud. A history of fraud should clue in everyone not to pay much mind to the current proclamations.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Jerome

They lowered and raised temperatures.

Who is "They"?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Jerome

That is a bullshit stat, and you don't even have the claim correct.

"
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

You should tell nasa that.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

[chunksmediocrites]

Jerome, please link or list sources for the graphs in your posts # 1052, 1055, 1059, and 1060. Where did you get these graphs from specifically?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Jerome, please link or list sources for the graphs in your posts # 1052, 1055, 1059, and 1060. Where did you get these graphs from specifically?

Bad Astronomy Forum is gone. That game is nonsense.

Non-reproducible results are thrown away by real science.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Climate Change: Consensus

I will help you out with a link to the actual study.

Expert credibility in climate change

It has been debunked. Try something novel, think instead of react.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Bad Astronomy Forum is gone. That game is nonsense.

Non-reproducible results are thrown away by real science.

I don't know what you are referencing. But when you post graphs without attribution or source- why?

Kinda rich since part of your argument is questioning the source of data and manipulation.

For post # 1052: the earliest I can find this graph
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/