6th Mass Extinction Kicks Off

[PoloMalo43]

You have that exactly backwards. Y'all need "climate change" and other marxist ruses as your cover from God.

It isn't possible for humans to impact the climate. We occupy just over a tenth of a percent of the surface of the Earth. All of us. Evuh-freekin-body and their shadow. To suggest that humankind in its puniness could affect anything on this planet is tantamount to fearing the ant hill in your back yard. Except the ant hill is far more consequential.

You're stupidity is impressive even by S.N. Tea bagger standards. Let me ask you a question:

How much will a Trident 2 missile that is 44 feet tall and 6 feet in diameter affect the planet? What will14 warheads in one missile, 24 in each Ohio class sub do? Now multiply that by all the nuclear weapons possessed by different countries.

They don't take much space right?

They were also built by man, just like all his CO2 emitting machines.

 

[PoloMalo43]

The real reasons conservatives deny the human impact on climate change are that you would also be admitting
God doesn't exist and Capitalism has its limits. With those two beliefs disproven, conservatism would no longer
exist.

So I respect your fight to postpone irrelevancy. But you can't postpone it forever.

One more thing. Don't pay attention to Steeltime and his graphs it's just doctored stuff from oil industry websites, in this case from climate depot.com which is run by Marc Morano who has a degree in political science, but a paycheck from Heartland Institute(think tank funded by Exxon,Koch Bros., Scaife Foundation, etc..) The false 'work' done on these legit looking but ultimately worthless props is done by Craig Idso, Willie Soon, etc.. You can research these people easily and see them for what they are, payed shills.

Watch out for idiotic questions like this; "Uhhh, okay ... then why the hell was 2013 not the hottest on record, nor even the hottest over the past century?"

As if CO2 is a thermostat....that's the level of idiocy that is common here. I'll answer that because his next post will demand an answer(even though I've answered a million times).

The oceans are absorbing most of the heat at this time, they have been for the past 15 years, even if they weren't you don't get an immediate response like that from the climate system.

 

[Steeltime]

One more thing. Don't pay attention to Steeltime and his graphs it's just doctored stuff from oil industry websites.

Lie. 100% lie. You know it's a lie, and you still propogate that idiotic meme because the data are too busy ******* your AGW crowd in the ***.

You make the claim, so go ahead and prove that temperature data between 1998 and present is "doctored" and "from oil industry websites."

I will save you the trouble, you miserable excuse for a human being. How about this "doctored" data from "Oil company websites," you ******* moron?

That's HADCRUT3 variance-adjusted global mean. Oh, I guess that's a "doctored" graph from an "oil company website," right? RIGHT??

HADCRUT3 unadjusted global mean. More "doctored" data from oil companies??

HADCRUT4 global mean

CRUTEM3 variance-adjusted land global mean.

Wow, so much doctored data from oil companies.

Making fun of you is getting too easy, Elfiepolo.

The oceans are absorbing most of the heat at this time, they have been for the past 15 years, even if they weren't you don't get an immediate response like that from the climate system.

Uhh, yeah, sure, the oceans are absorbing the heat.

Funny how not one ******* climate model accurately projected that factor.

 

[PoloMalo43]

You didn't get the graphs on page 5 from climate depot?

 

[PoloMalo43]

Lie. 100% lie. You know it's a lie, and you still propogate that idiotic meme because the data are too busy ******* your AGW crowd in the ***.

You make the claim, so go ahead and prove that temperature data between 1998 and present is "doctored" and "from oil industry websites."

I will save you the trouble, you miserable excuse for a human being. How about this "doctored" data from "Oil company websites," you ******* moron?


That's HADCRUT3 variance-adjusted global mean. Oh, I guess that's a "doctored" graph from an "oil company website," right? RIGHT??


HADCRUT3 unadjusted global mean. More "doctored" data from oil companies??


HADCRUT4 global mean


CRUTEM3 variance-adjusted land global mean.

Wow, so much doctored data from oil companies.

Making fun of you is getting too easy, Elfiepolo.



Uhh, yeah, sure, the oceans are absorbing the heat.

Funny how not one ******* climate model accurately projected that factor.

Nice job with the cherry picking.... we all know 15 years is too short a period to analyse. You have paid attention to the denier tactics though. Good job!

 

[PoloMalo43]

I can go to wood for trees and make my own graph too. Only I'll use a 30 year span, even someone as bad at math as me and without averaging the data points can see the upward trend all the way through that span. The rate has slowed after 1996/7/8 or so, but anyone can see it's still moving up just like the Skeptical Science 'escalator'.

Warm up the clown car.

 

[ark steel]

Uhh, yeah, sure, the oceans are absorbing the heat.

Funny how not one ******* climate model accurately projected that factor.

I beg to differ. I have been told that the models accurately reflect all relevant inputs and feedbacks. TAKE THAT FLAT EARTHER!!

 

[SteelChip]

Just listen to Hillary, she get's it !

Hillary: Climate Change Is The Biggest Threat We Face

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (WNB) - Hillary Clinton told an audience at Harry Reid's (RTRD-NV) annual energy conference Thursday that climate change is currently the most dire threat facing the world.

An excerpt from Clinton's address:

Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face. It is real, it is on the move, and people and animals are suffering.

We, as a people, can no longer sit idly by while hundreds of polar bears are cast adrift, thousands of people are tortured and beheaded, tens of thousands desperately and illegally enter our country, hundreds of innocent young girls are kidnapped and abused, commercial airliners full of passengers simply vanish, and unarmed youths are gunned down in the streets because of the color of their skin.

We must confront this challenge or perish, and it all starts with dimming that lamp, riding that bicycle, or skipping that shower. Working together, we can defeat climate change and save our world.

Thank you and may God bless America.

Dim that lamp says the dim bulb. Electing the Hildebeast President would be comparable to electing Barbara Boxer or Nasty Nancy, but Americans don't seem to learn from their mistakes.

View attachment 527

 

[PoloMalo43]

I beg to differ. I have been told that the models accurately reflect all relevant inputs and feedbacks. TAKE THAT FLAT EARTHER!!

No one has ever said that, no one who knows what they're talking about anyway.

 

[Steeltime]

Nice job with the cherry picking.... we all know 15 years is too short a period to analyse. You have paid attention to the denier tactics though. Good job!

Two points.

(1) Your claim that the data I cited are "corrupted" and from "oil companies" is a flat-out lie. I cited numerous other sources, and you then change the subject. Fail. Care to withdraw your phony "corrupted" data from "oil companies" argument?

(2) Speaking of corrupted data ... 30 years is too short a span as well, right? Why don't we use proxy data spanning a credible duration, such as 2,000 years?

Read this analysis, using multiple proxies for the past 2,000 years and deriving very similar results as the graphs depicted above.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf

Or what about 10,000 years, using proxies (obviously)?

Mann's proxy data findings showed the following:

That is his famous "hockey stick." However, as Steve McIntrye showed, Mann's findings are predicated data manipulation in the form of proxy selection, and use of "data transformation."

"[1] The “hockey stick” shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the “dominant pattern of variance”. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/full

Finally, do you believe it appropriate for a scientist to steal somebody else's research and claim credit? You should read this 2013 article from Willis Eschenbach, showing very clearly how Michael Mann literally stole a research idea from him (truncating data sets and then calculating degree of confidence by comparing non-truncated portions to actual results), and claimed it as his own.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/

So do you think that Michael Mann should be held accountable for his action? If not, can you explain why?

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

I tell ya, the brilliance behind the heat is now all going to the oceans is top notch. How do you distract a low info voter? Just tell them another lie. What happens in 20 years when the air is cooler, the oceans are cooler and the ultra wealthy libs need more money from their union lackeys? Tell them that the hot air is escaping into space and that it is going to make the sun unstable and we will all die from a solar flare. Or even better that the heat is now being transferred into the core of the earth and it is going to make the earth pop from unsustainable pressure. Just like a zit on Polu's ***.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Two points.

(1) Your claim that the data I cited are "corrupted" and from "oil companies" is a flat-out lie. I cited numerous other sources, and you then change the subject. Fail. Care to withdraw your phony "corrupted" data from "oil companies" argument?

Are the graphs on page 5 not from climate audit run by Marc Morano and funded by fossil fuel interests through Heartland Institute? Since you won't answer any of my questions i'll help you: Yes, it is funded by Heartland.

(2) Speaking of corrupted data ... 30 years is too short a span as well, right? Why don't we use proxy data spanning a credible duration, such as 2,000 years?

Scroll down and I'll give you all the graphs with proxy data that you can handle.

Read this analysis, using multiple proxies for the past 2,000 years and deriving very similar results as the graphs depicted above.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf

Or what about 10,000 years, using proxies (obviously)?

Mann's proxy data findings showed the following:

That is his famous "hockey stick." However, as Steve McIntrye showed, Mann's findings are predicated data manipulation in the form of proxy selection, and use of "data transformation."

"[1] The “hockey stick” shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the “dominant pattern of variance”. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/full

Finally, do you believe it appropriate for a scientist to steal somebody else's research and claim credit? You should read this 2013 article from Willis Eschenbach, showing very clearly how Michael Mann literally stole a research idea from him (truncating data sets and then calculating degree of confidence by comparing non-truncated portions to actual results), and claimed it as his own.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/

So do you think that Michael Mann should be held accountable for his action? If not, can you explain why?

I hardly believe that Mann stole anything from Eschenbach since Willie E. is a joke.

As far as 1998 we are a long way from that year and many, many studies have reproduced the hockey stick since then using different proxies.

First let's look at your current source of graphs, World Climate Report. Follow the link and everyone will see the usual suspects; Patrick Michaels(founder) Willie Soon,Sallie Baliunas and others. Of course Willie and Sallie just visit because they're neighborly that way, not because Heartland, the Marshall institute, and behind it all Exxon and the Koch Bros. are funding all of them...no....no... they just love the truth.....................

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=85

Now to the other Willie, Willie E. lol...

When Popular Technology.net( a denier web site) wants to distance itself from him, what does that tell you about Eschenbach's credibility? Not even the wack jobs take him seriously.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html

First a lovely picture of Willie at the Heartland podium...WHERE ELSE WOULD HE BE STANDING?

Now to the meat and potatos...or is it plywood and nails?

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Who is Willis Eschenbach?

As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.

He is not a "computer modeler", he is not an "engineer" and he is certainly not a "scientist" (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

"A final question, one asked on Judith Curry's blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach..."

Willis Eschenbach has been a guest poster at Watts Up With That since June of 2009 and has had 20 pages of his writings indexed since tagging his posts began in December of 2009. Unlike apparently most of his regular readers, I took the time early on to check the credentials of Mr. Eschenbach;

Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psychology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People's Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010); House Carpenter (2012-Present)

With so many highly credentialed skeptical scientists to get my scientific information from, I generally ignored his posts and rambling stories.

This was until a post was made by Dr. Spencer correcting Mr. Eschenbach (who did not take the criticism well) and brought to light just how damaging the spread of misinformation by an amateur scientist can be. Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer's warning may have fallen on deaf ears.

The bigger concern is that Mr. Eschenbach either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented. Since he is so insistent that credentials do not matter, he should be the first one to correct these and I should not being doing his job for him;


Daily Telegraph 2009

In 2009, he was incorrectly labeled by the Daily Telegraph as a "scientist",

But just when you think it can't get any better, along comes this cracker of an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.

Without the qualifier "amateur", this egregiously misrepresents his educational and professional experience and elevates an amateur's opinion to a level he has not earned.


n 2011, he was incorrectly labeled by the Daily Telegraph [archived] as a "very experience computer modeler" [since corrected after I contacted the paper]. The context of which was clearly as a climate or scientific modeler,

"The study, based entirely on computer models, focused on the exceptional flooding that took place in England and Wales in the autumn of 2000. [...]

Why had this strangely opaque study been based solely on the results of a series of computer models – mainly provided by the Hadley Centre and RMS – and not on any historical data about rainfall and river flows? [...]

In the real world, the data show no evidence of an increase in UK rainfall at all. Any idea that there is one seemed to be entirely an artefact of the computer models.



(continued) in part 2

 

[PoloMalo43]

Part 2

On Friday came the fullest and most expert dissection of the Nature paper so far, published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller.

Again, he failed to correct this misrepresentation when he had the chance.

It’s Not About Me
Posted on February 28, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach

"One response to Christopher Booker graciously mentioning my work in the Telegraph..."

When challenged on this in 2013, Mr. Eschenbach decided to double down on the misrepresentation of his credentials,

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm

"So while you are correct that I’m not an engineer, nor have I claimed to be, I am indeed a computer modeler of some small ability"

Mr. Eschenbach has no relevant computer programming experience. He was never trained or employed as a computer programmer, let alone a "computer modeler". He fails to list a single name of a program he actually wrote on his CV (unheard of for a real programmer) that can be verified for their quality and as confirmation of the programming languages he claims to be proficient in.

His computer related experience includes things like training people in Fiji on using Macintosh computers (MacPacific) and using CAD/CAM software (MiniCad) for construction projects.

However, there is extensive evidence that he is a user of Excel and writes macros.

Willis Eschenbach Posted May 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM

"I program in Excel because I’m an order of magnitude faster in Excel. I have a host of specialized functions and macros that let me do the various functions and actions quickly."

Hardly the credentials of a "computer modeler".

Now on to the hockey stick:

Even though this only goes back 1,000 years it doesn't show the radical downward spike on the Loehle 2008 graphs you posted that takes place right at the year 1,000.

Are these enough proxy studies in one graph for you? Of course not you'll run to something, anything else, but NEVER admit that you are WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH AGW!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Want to go farther back?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=394

As you may have already gathered(since you are slightly brighter than the other dullards) is that Loehle IS WRONG.


Readers may wonder how this new reconstruction compares to previous hemispherical and global temperature reconstructions. In his conclusion, Ljungqvist (2010) reports that:

"Although partly different data and methods have been used in our reconstruction than in Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008), the result is surprisingly similar. The inclusion of additional records would probably not substantially change the overall picture of the temperature variability."

On the other hand, Craig Loehle claims that Ljungqvist's work vindicates his own previous "global" reconstruction (Loehle and McCulloch 2008, previously discussed elsewhere on this site). Writing on the website Watts Up With That, Loehle claims:

"In this post I demonstrate perhaps a little vindication [...] There is excellent agreement over the past 1100 years [...] My peak temperature occurs about 100 years earlier, but I agree with the new reconstruction [....] The MWP looks real."

So who's right? Does Ljungqvist confirm the results of Mann (2008) and Moberg (2005)? Or do his results agree with Loehle and McCulloch (2008)? Figure 2 provides a comparison of them all, starting in AD 500 (the earliest date in Mann 2008's global reconstruction), with the northern hemisphere instrumental record shown for comparison.

Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.

When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.

Moberg is a bit on the cool side overall -- which might just mean it was anomalously warm during the calibration period used for centering. Mann and Ljungqvist agree very closely on the Medieval Warm Period, though Mann's Little Ice Age is not as cold.

Loehle manages to be both too warm and too early on the Medieval Warm Period and on the cool side during the Little Ice Age. This difference would not be all that noteworthy, except for the fact that Loehle 2008 is supposed to be a global reconstruction ... and the magnitude of the MWP-LIA difference should almost certainly be smaller for a global reconstruction than for a Northern Hemisphere one.

The other obvious point is that when we compare these to the current instrumental temperature record, the Medieval Warm Period seems to be about 0.7 degrees C cooler than the 2000-2010 mean temperature.

Here comes your ride. Will you be carpooling with any carpenters today?

 

[Steeltime]

As expected, Elfie posts a clown car cartoon, denies the facts, pretends black is white, ignores the data that refute his position, and proves himself useless for any purpose other than a punching bag.

The guy has proof of submission of his error-calculation theory. Mann stole the idea from him after he was given the critique by the "reviewers."

McIntrye also had exactly the same experience, where his criticism of Mann's methodology was submitted for publication, and before it was published, Mann published an "explanation" and correction.

McIntyre discussed one experience he had with reviewers and Mann's faulty data. He wrote in part, "The situation in the Reply seems entirely different to me. Our Comment stated that Mann et al 2008 used the Tiljander proxies upside down. At this point, it seems to me that Mann et al were obligated to double check whether they had used them upside down and, having made such an investigation, they would be obliged to report that they had inadvertently used the Tiljander proxies upside down and provide the corrected results with the proxies used in the Tiljander orientation. It is not open to them to deny that they used the proxies upside down. This becomes especially distasteful when they then cite this Reply to members of the public at realclimate, who then accuse me of being “dishonest”. It becomes even more distasteful when they censor my comment refuting Mann’s claim on this matter."

http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/

Read the entire article for a revealing illustration of Mann's approach towards credible, well-founded criticism of his research. In the instance which is the subject of McIntyre's article, Mann inverted x-ray data by exchanging the X and Y axes when he utilized the data. When McIntyre appropriately wrote the reviewers that "Hey, Mann inverted the data," Mann denied it, and his cohorts accused McIntyre of being dishonest.

That is what the AGW proponents have done to those outside their little group. Here is another detailed discussion of clear misstatements by an AGW site called "Real Climate."

http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/10/evasions-and-fantasy-at-real-climate/

McIntyre has literally dozens of examples of his being misrepresented, lied about, etc. by the AGW community. You should read a few of these articles.

Oh, and I read Real Climate and the inaptly-named "Skeptical Science" to get both sides of the argument. You clearly don't. AGW is your religion, and like all religions, does not allow for criticism or doubt.

 

[Rod Farva]

As expected, Elfie posts a clown car cartoon,.

She's painted herself into another corner and her argument has again crumbled. Sensing it and knowing that that retarded video has resulted in a prior vacation, she posts it again in the hope that Coolie will give her a breather.

 

[PoloMalo43]

She's painted herself into another corner and her argument has again crumbled. Sensing it and knowing that that retarded video has resulted in a prior vacation, she posts it again in the hope that Coolie will give her a breather.

No, I post it because it's an appropriate metaphor and funny, lame straw man but with teachers like Tiny Tim we don't expect much from you so don't worry. You claim my argument has crumbled yet it's Steeltime who runs away and will not respond to anything I ask.

Does he believe Lord Monckton has cured AIDS?

Does he take the word of a carpenter over the majority of climate scientists? I'll answer for him; yes he does, that's how pathetic his position is. We all know about his love affair with the High School weatherman so this comes as no surprise.

Does he not comprehend that many, many legit studies have replicated the hockey stick? Of course he does, but he can't back down and show himself to be the *** clown he is in front of his buds here, so he'll carry on.

People like you are not capable of acknowledging him getting his *** handed to him, you just jump up and down with your pom poms.

Carry on.

 

[Steeltime]

Does he believe Lord Monckton has cured AIDS?

I will reply, yet again since you failed to answer my question: What does this have to do with ANYTHING I have written in this discussion?

What? For heaven's sake, it's an easy question, yet you cannot answer it. Why? Because, as usual, you get ***-raped in a debate, so you change topics.

Jesus, Adrian Peterson's kids get less of a beating than you.

Does he take the word of a carpenter over the majority of climate scientists?

Depends on the data backing up what each says, no?

You continuously harp on who said something, not on the merits of what was said. I am sure that your low-level, unintelligent, illegitimate ad hominem approach passes muster among your peers, but not here. Grown-ups are talking. I demand back-up.

Further, you are simply butt-hurt because in this one thread, I have proven the following:

1. Your claim that global warming caused decimation of the starfish population was a lie; the article you linked specifically stated otherwise: "Starfish have been mysteriously dying ... Scientists who have spent decades studying the local ecosystem have yet to identify the cause." You then disappeared for a few days to allow the thread to roll over to another page, and hope that nobody remembered your initial stomping. Go back to page 1, you assclown, and re-read this point. Dumbass.

2. I then showed that your reply to Ed - who pointed out that the head of the IPCC had zero education in "climate science" or any related field - was supposedly immaterial since the guy had a Ph.D. in engineering was another flat-out lie, since you had repeatedly dismissed comments, research, data, findings, etc. from various sources since "what degree does he have in climate science? That's right, none," and "He's not a climate scientist" and "None of them is a climate scientist." I quoted you verbatim on this from your prior posts, at which point you disappeared for another 2 days to allow that page of the thread to roll over and hide your shame. (Note this technique ... when ElfiePolo is humiliated, she hides for 2 days, waits for the embarrassing stompage to get put on a prior page, and then starts some new rant, hoping that nobody remembered what the hell she did and said that led to the ***-kicking.)

3. You then embarrassed yourself a third time in this thread, claiming that the data I cited about the "global warming pause" was phony and made up by oil companies. I posted graphs from HadCRUT3 and 4 and CRUTEMP showing you a liar, and challenged you to admit your mistake. Of course, you did not.

Three times, I proffered a reply to something you said, with linked data supporting the fact that you are an inveterate liar. Yet incredibly, stunningly, you claim:

People like you are not capable of acknowledging him getting his *** handed to him, you just jump up and down with your pom poms.

Yes, indeed, there has been some felony beating going on in this thread ... and you are the one who has spent weeks in the "beating room." Adrian Peterson would be exhausted if he administered a similar beat-down. Re-read the thread if you have any doubt about the foregoing.

Finally, in response to your comment:

Does he not comprehend that many, many legit studies have replicated the hockey stick? Of course he does, but he can't back down and show himself to be the *** clown he is in front of his buds here, so he'll carry on.

And yet the hockey stick is not found in several ice core proxy data studies, nor is it valid in the phony Mann graph. Instead, ice core data show the following:

So to sum up:

1. I replied to your claims three times in this thread, and showed that you were lying, off base and/or inconsistent.
2. I have answered your questions, though God knows I have no duty to answer questions from a proven liar.
3. I guess the science is a little unsettled as to CO2 levels and current temperature, given the ice core data.

You're welcome.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

when is the hockey stick coming? Still well below average here and I think that whole Antarctica thread pretty much tells us that warming isn't occuring in that area either. Look, you can jump up and down and swear that we are all about to melt, but until we can actually see it getting warmer no one is going to put any faith in AGW.

 

[Steeltime]

Look, you can jump up and down and swear that we are all about to melt, but until we can actually see it getting warmer no one is going to put any faith in AGW.

ElfiePolo's response:

"Why can't you just leave me and my
clown car alone?? Why?!?!?"

 

[PoloMalo43]

I will reply, yet again since you failed to answer my question: What does this have to do with ANYTHING I have written in this discussion?

What? For heaven's sake, it's an easy question, yet you cannot answer it. Why? Because, as usual, you get ***-raped in a debate, so you change topics.

Jesus, Adrian Peterson's kids get less of a beating than you.



Depends on the data backing up what each says, no?

You continuously harp on who said something, not on the merits of what was said. I am sure that your low-level, unintelligent, illegitimate ad hominem approach passes muster among your peers, but not here. Grown-ups are talking. I demand back-up.

Further, you are simply butt-hurt because in this one thread, I have proven the following:

1. Your claim that global warming caused decimation of the starfish population was a lie; the article you linked specifically stated otherwise: "Starfish have been mysteriously dying ... Scientists who have spent decades studying the local ecosystem have yet to identify the cause." You then disappeared for a few days to allow the thread to roll over to another page, and hope that nobody remembered your initial stomping. Go back to page 1, you assclown, and re-read this point. Dumbass.

2. I then showed that your reply to Ed - who pointed out that the head of the IPCC had zero education in "climate science" or any related field - was supposedly immaterial since the guy had a Ph.D. in engineering was another flat-out lie, since you had repeatedly dismissed comments, research, data, findings, etc. from various sources since "what degree does he have in climate science? That's right, none," and "He's not a climate scientist" and "None of them is a climate scientist." I quoted you verbatim on this from your prior posts, at which point you disappeared for another 2 days to allow that page of the thread to roll over and hide your shame. (Note this technique ... when ElfiePolo is humiliated, she hides for 2 days, waits for the embarrassing stompage to get put on a prior page, and then starts some new rant, hoping that nobody remembered what the hell she did and said that led to the ***-kicking.)

3. You then embarrassed yourself a third time in this thread, claiming that the data I cited about the "global warming pause" was phony and made up by oil companies. I posted graphs from HadCRUT3 and 4 and CRUTEMP showing you a liar, and challenged you to admit your mistake. Of course, you did not.

Three times, I proffered a reply to something you said, with linked data supporting the fact that you are an inveterate liar. Yet incredibly, stunningly, you claim:



Yes, indeed, there has been some felony beating going on in this thread ... and you are the one who has spent weeks in the "beating room." Adrian Peterson would be exhausted if he administered a similar beat-down. Re-read the thread if you have any doubt about the foregoing.

Finally, in response to your comment:



And yet the hockey stick is not found in several ice core proxy data studies, nor is it valid in the phony Mann graph. Instead, ice core data show the following:

So to sum up:

1. I replied to your claims three times in this thread, and showed that you were lying, off base and/or inconsistent.
2. I have answered your questions, though God knows I have no duty to answer questions from a proven liar.
3. I guess the science is a little unsettled as to CO2 levels and current temperature, given the ice core data.

You're welcome.

No one including you has 'stomped' me idiot. All you do is obfuscate and call me a "proven liar" then proceed to post nonsense from confirmed liars like Monckton, Watts, Esenbach, etc..

As far as what my questions have to do with anything, it's called CREDIBILITY. You post drivel from people like Monckton who claim to be in the house of lords and that he was Maggie Thatchers 'science advisor' ALL MANUFACTURED BULLSHIT!

And you act like these people are bringing the gospel to us when it comes to climate change...lol.. You're a joke along with them and are unable or unwilling to grasp that.

1.I don't disappear as you claim, if the thread drags I move on, if I've decimated any counter positions(about 99% of cases) I move on (see the thread about ISIS in Texas) If I'm bored with a thread I move on. I also don't have time to answer every post since it's 20 to 1 most of the time.

2. My claim that starfish are dying because of AGW stands. Again, I am not a scientist so I don't have to be conservative, although everyone who understands that the warming oceans would increase pathogen propagation KNOWS AGW caused this.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-zero-whats-causing-starfish-die-offs/

Scientists have been working for months to find out what’s causing the massive die-off and now Harvell and others have evidence that an infectious disease caused by a bacteria or virus may be at the root of the problem. The disease, they say, could be compounded by warming waters, which put the sea stars under stress, making them more vulnerable to the pathogen.

Harvell has studied marine diseases for 20 years. She had thought that the syndrome might spare Washington’s San Juan Islands. Until recently, pockets of cold water and swift currents seem to have protected the local sea star population from the epidemic.

But with the arrival of summer, the waters around the San Juan archipelago have warmed. From what Harvell and her team see as they survey beaches, there’s not much time for these starfish — or sea stars, as scientists prefer to call them since they’re not fish.

3. You bringing up the head of the IPCC is again, idiotic. I did not 'hide' if I had seen your post and child like attempt at reasoning I would have back handed you right then and there. Since you bring it up now, you can have the pain now.

You do understand that Pachauri as chair is in an administrative position right? You have to and you are just playing dumb, because if you don't that means I have to take back what I said about you before and I now know you are an even bigger ignoramus than most here. You're 'argument' is the equivalent of someone saying the guy who is the CEO of coca-cola should be qualified as an IT guy since coke uses computers...lol you truly are SPECIAL.

The people you use as sources are arguing from climate science positions without being climate scientists. Jesus you just used a CARPENTER as a source.....A ******* CARPENTER....Hollywood writers can't make this **** up!

4. You did use on page 5 graphs from CLimate Audit, did you not?

5. The use of hadcrut data on it's own proves nothing. As far as hockey sticks.....I've said enough on it you are beating a dead horse and you own that horse.

One last time for those who are not getting it. All the different colors are representative of different studies(and sources) using different proxies.

 

[Rod Farva]

No, I post it because it's an appropriate metaphor and funny, lame straw man but with teachers like Tiny Tim we don't expect much from you so don't worry. You claim my argument has crumbled yet it's Steeltime who runs away and will not respond to anything I ask.

Does he believe Lord Monckton has cured AIDS?

Does he take the word of a carpenter over the majority of climate scientists? I'll answer for him; yes he does, that's how pathetic his position is. We all know about his love affair with the High School weatherman so this comes as no surprise.

Does he not comprehend that many, many legit studies have replicated the hockey stick? Of course he does, but he can't back down and show himself to be the *** clown he is in front of his buds here, so he'll carry on.

People like you are not capable of acknowledging him getting his *** handed to him, you just jump up and down with your pom poms.

Carry on.

Yayyyy Tim!

 

[SteelChip]

Obama’s Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home
Anthony Watts / 4 hours ago September 16, 2014

Eric Worrall writes: The imminent climate summit in New York is rapidly turning into an utter embarrassment for President Obama and UN Secretary General Bank Ki-Moon, in addition to becoming a bit of a punishment round for national deputy leaders.

Aussie PM Tony Abbott today defended his decision not to hop on an earlier flight to America, so he could attend the UN climate conference in New York, because he has more important matters to attend to, such as running the country.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...mmit-in-new-york/story-fni0xqrb-1227060005413

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also indicated they likely won’t attend the summit.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/top-leaders-from-china-india-to-skip-un-climate-change-summit/

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated he will not be attending. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...rper-to-skip-un-climate-summit-183946998.html

Even Angela Merkel, President of über green Germany, will not be attending the UN climate summit. http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/26/...ference-burying-the-global-climate-agreement/

Of course, things would probably have been totally different, if the summit organizers had guaranteed that attendees would definitely not have to sit through any more boring climate presentations by former Vice President Al Gore.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/obamas-lonely-climate-summit-world-leaders-are-staying-home/

 

[Steeltime]

No one including you has 'stomped' me idiot. All you do is obfuscate and call me a "proven liar" then proceed to post nonsense from confirmed liars like Monckton, Watts, Esenbach, etc..]

We have certainly stamped you an idiot, and stomped you in this discussion.

And once again, liar, I posted temperature data from HadCRUT3 and 4 and CRUTEMP, showing the "pause." You simply ignored that data, after alleging that the "pause" was based on "doctored data" from "oil companies."

For God's sake, your comments are easily referenced in this thread and prove my point. Can you read?

As far as what my questions have to do with anything, it's called CREDIBILITY.

So go ahead and prove your claim that the "pause" is derived from "doctored data" from "oil companies." Go ahead ... we'll wait. When you can't, since the 16 year pause is reflected in HadCRUT and CRUTEMP, then we will have all we need to know about your credibility. (Since you are too stupid to get it, let me help: You have none.)

1.I don't disappear as you claim, if the thread drags I move on, if I've decimated any counter positions(about 99% of cases) I move on (see the thread about ISIS in Texas) If I'm bored with a thread I move on. I also don't have time to answer every post since it's 20 to 1 most of the time.

Yes, you do disappear after the numerous instances where you are obliterated. Look at this thread ... you get ***-raped, and disappear, then re-appear 2 pages later with a completely different rant. This time, you are shrieking about Monckton, who has literally nothing to do with this thread.

Nothing.

But that is your technique. Get stomped on the facts, resort to character attacks. Shown to be an inveterate liar, repeat character assassination, including the character of somebody who has nothing to do with the discussion.

I know how you operate. You run to a chat forum after getting ***-raped yet again, ask for help, and one of your ideological compatriots recommends, "Hey, attack Monckton!!"

2. My claim that starfish are dying because of AGW stands. Again, I am not a scientist ...

Hmmm ... that position seems at odds with:

The people you use as sources are arguing from climate science positions without being climate scientists

Elfie - irony on line 1.

Scientists have been working for months to find out what’s causing the massive die-off and now Harvell and others have evidence that an infectious disease caused by a bacteria or virus may be at the root of the problem. The disease, they say, could be compounded by warming waters, which put the sea stars under stress, making them more vulnerable to the pathogen.

May ... could. Okay. But the researchers specifically stated that they do NOT know the cause. They do NOT relate the cause to global warming.

But hey, you've never let facts stand in your way, have you? Scientists don't know the cause? **** that, Elfie does - GLOBAL WARMING!!

[Continued]

 

[Steeltime]

[Continued]

You do understand that Pachauri as chair is in an administrative position right? You have to and you are just playing dumb, because if you don't that means I have to take back what I said about you before and I now know you are an even bigger ignoramus than most here. You're 'argument' is the equivalent of someone saying the guy who is the CEO of coca-cola should be qualified as an IT guy since coke uses computers...lol you truly are SPECIAL.

Yeah, sure, the head of the IPCC has zero relevant background. He is just a figurehead, whose duties include serving donuts at board meetings. Great.

Yeah, except for this:

(1) Glacier Melt

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could "disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner". Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

(2) Effects of Global Warming

"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at a news conference in Yokohama.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559

(3) Interview with The Economist Regarding His Role with IPCC

The Economist: Given that you've said that you're not a glaciologist, last year you said some very strong things about Dr Raina's report on the state of the glaciers. You said that “I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

Dr Pachauri: Well, I mean, I was reacting to the fact that he is questioning whether glaciers are melting at all, and those of them that are. He mentions that some are not, and he said that those of them that are, are certainly not melting because of climate change. That seemed, and still seems baffling to me.

The Economist: Is there clear evidence that climate change is the reason for the shrinking of any of the glaciers in the Himalayas?

Dr Pachauri: I think if you look at what the Chinese are producing, that gives you very strong evidence that climate change is resulting in melting of those glaciers. I just find it inexplicable that there is something happening on the other side of the Himalayas for which we have explanations but those explanations don't apply on this side of the Himalayas.

http://www.economist.com/node/15473066

(4) The Need for Immediate Action and the Dire Consequences of Global Warming

And readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see “Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change” especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri — a scientist and economist — admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...rt-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/

(5) Causation of Weather Events and Global Warming

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world's leading climate change authority said yesterday. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.

"Frankly, it is difficult to take a season or two and come up with any conclusions on those on a scientific basis," Dr Pachauri said.

"What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world. "On that there is very little doubt; the scientific evidence is very, very strong. But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...057100026?nk=fdf49be73205b0ac4fc564ec189f8e43

There are at least 50 more examples, but I felt that this small cross-section makes the point ... funny how the guy never seems to say, "Hey, you know what, I don't know **** about the science and I am not the guy to talk to about this." He also never says, "Well, I am basing this on what others said, and cite my sources here since I don't know a thing about the science."

And funny how he is content to be labeled a qualified spokesman for "the worlds leading authority on climate change." And funny how he fails to mention that none of the claims he advances are his, since he is not qualified in the field - a point you admit.

Hmmm, odd, isn't it? The administrative figurehead out there making repeated claims about global warming. Oh, well, I guess he continually notes his lack of expertise on the subject, and the fact that he is incompetent to offer any comment or analysis, and those damn newspapers and blogs ignore him and make him say something, against his will.

Right?

The people you use as sources are arguing from climate science positions without being climate scientists. Jesus you just used a CARPENTER as a source.....A ******* CARPENTER....Hollywood writers can't make this **** up!

Your contempt for somebody who worked as a carpenter says a lot about you. I understand that your very questionable emotional state and blind hatred clouds your view of the world, so you think it appropriate to make fun of people for earning a living in a trade you deem "beneath" you.

You do the same with McIntyre and McKitrick. They have considerable experience in mathematics and statistics? Elfie responds, "Pfffft, no matter. They are not climate scientists [though that label apparently has no application to the freaking head of the IPCC]."

Further, your comments about qualifications shows your ignorance yet again. A person can be an expert in a field without any educational prerequisites. For example, California Evidence Code, § 720 provides, "A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates."

"Or" Elfie ... "or." That means specialized knowledge, skill and experience are enough - fortunately for the head of the IPCC, no?

4. You did use on page 5 graphs from Climate Audit, did you not? 5. The use of hadcrut data on it's own proves nothing.

You really are too dumb to see why the HadCRUT3 and 4 and CRUTEMP data prove that I was correct, aren't you?

Of course the HadCRUT3 and 4 and CRUTEMP data matter, you idiot - you have no dispute with that data, and that data SHOWED THE PAUSE, JUST AS DID THE FIRST GRAPH I POSTED.

I provide four more graphs showing the pause, and show that the evidence is not from "doctored data" from "oil companies," but your astonishingly limited intellect apparently fails to see that data you accept as valid shows the same goddam pause.

Get it now?

Stop embarrassing yourself

 

[ark steel]

You would have to have some dignity, pride or self-esteem in order to be embarrassed, I think.