Originally posted by fierobear: I've had enough of flyinfieros and his Mann-crush. Michael Mann is a FRAUD, and he should be in JAIL for what he's done to science. And since flyinfieros insists on supporting Mann, and repeating his bullshit over and over, it's time to revisit Mann's infamous "hockey stick graph", and repost how and why it is a FRAUD. flyinfieros support and reposting of this fraud means he's no less a fraud than Mann. What I'm posting is well documented, and the skeptics show their work.
flyinfieros has been shown this proof, and continues to post this crap. If he reposts this fraud, then he is just as guilty of fraud.
Wow, you need a nice relaxing drink.
First off, this is a perfect example of the undo harassment that Michael Mann has been a victim of.
Third, this is an example of denier's fading glory. Mann will be remembered a hero. And deniers can't stand it.
Let's move on to the post though.
Interesting precedent you're trying to set. The one posting fraud is just a guilty?
Be careful what you wish for. Of course you don't follow precedents you try to set yourself. For instance, you claimed this thread wouldn't be about overblown hype. As I intend to prove once again, your posts are completely overblown hype.
Let's examine this piece of lies posted by you:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
The graph itself comes from the 1990 IPPC report which states "though it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global." Source.
The basis of the global warming conspiracy theory fierobear keeps posting about is that the IPPC used Mann's work to 'rewrite' history. In reality, the graph this conspiracy theory is based off of is just one scientist's "qualitative judgement and interpretation" with zero "calibration against instrumental data" of temperatures in central England - not even global. Source.
To abuse this graph, climate change deniers would have to cherry pick evidence and infill with hype.
But climate change deniers wouldn't use tricks to fool their incompetent audience would they?
Sure they would! WUWT has a blog post peddling this nonsense, claiming the IPCC "disappeared" the Medieval Warm Period, even using a graph from a Wikipedia article despite the Wiki article debunking the argument being made. Climate change deniers wear horse blinders.
Don't worry fierobear, I'm sure your prison buddy will love you.
Moving on.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Now notice the trend since 2012. It is distinctly downward.
I drew green lines on all the 'distinctly downwards' for you. Don't let the thick red line confuse you though. Short term trends are way more important.
Keep focusing on the 2%, the atmosphere, it really hurts your case to bring the 98% into the picture: Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-27-2014).]
Do your own research. How about every time he tries to dismiss a post as being from a "blog site", but he frequently uses blog sites like "skeptical science".
If you actually paid attention to this thread, you would know that.
it is interesting to note what NASA is quoted as saying in the Daily Caller article .
"In 2013, the average temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century baseline temperature. According to NASA, the average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880."
When you get past all the rhetoric, posturing, and baffle gab, you see the telling stat. 1.4 degrees F increase since 1880 in 2013. This is a far cry from .2 Celcius per decade.
What will this winter do to the yearly average for 2014? If the first month or two of the New Year go way below normal, how hot will it have to be this summer to even it out?
you notice the very weak solar max with low spot counts stars are variable ours in in a low quite phase normally we should be cooling now we are NOT EVER PUT TO THINGS TOGETHER ?
Ray, maybe you haven't noticed in sunny Florida, but folks north of you are having a record winter. The arctic vortex has exploded to a much larger piece of geography, and Antarctica has one of the coolest summers in recent times.
So you are going to prove that the protestations of the AGW proponents of global disaster, inundated islands, millions of climate refugees, increased hurricane activity, and an open Arctic Ocean are not false and misleading?
If so, what are your qualifications to say that any of these forecasted disasters have occurred?
What are your qualifications to say that the Arctic ice field completely melted any time in the last century?
What are your qualifications to say that the IPCC charts and graphs claiming AGW is happening are true?
The predictions made were for the next century (read: in 50-100 years). You're the only one repeating this garbage and pretending like they were made for current times.
Oh wait, let me guess. Al Gore said it, therefore all scientists are shams, right?
Lots of sources inundate the airwaves and internet with dire predictions to come within our lifetimes. They are all bogus and there are thousands of references all based on errant IPCC, East Anglia, NASA data as well as the hucksters of doom, Al Gore and David Suzuki
By the 2080s, most land areas north of latitude 40°N, from Europe to the northern U.S. states and Canada, will see a jump in the number of days with precipitation greater than 0.40 inch (1 centimeter), according to NCAR research. The same NCAR report found that dry spells could lengthen significantly across the western United States, southern Europe, eastern Brazil, and several other areas. Another study found widespread agreement among computer models that the U.S. Southwest, from the southern Great Plains to California, may be entering a semipermanent state of drought, with "normal" years by the 2030s becoming as dry as the 1930s Dustbowl or the persistent drought of the 1950s.
Summer sea ice in the Arctic could decrease dramatically by the 2020s, according to climate-model studies that also suggest virtually ice-free Arctic summers are possible by 2040. The ice loss threatens the survival of polar bears and other Arctic species. The melting of ice from Greenland, West Antarctica, and glaciers elsewhere will add to sea-level rise, which could range from 7 to 24 inches by 2100 according to the IPCC’s most recent estimates. However, some aspects of melting that could speed glacial loss are not fully represented in models or in the IPCC’s own estimates because they remain poorly understood. An NCAR study in 2006 found that the Arctic’s summer warmth by 2100 could match that of 130,000 years ago, when sea levels were rising to 20 feet above today’s levels. Even if levels rise far less than that, a 2009 study suggests the coastal United States, and particularly the northeast from New York up through Canada, is especially vulnerable. Most of the world’s permafrost could thaw by the end of this century, an NCAR study found in 2004. Tropical and midlatitude glaciers will continue to retreat. Some projections show, for example, that the namesakes of Glacier National Park could be gone by 2030.
Global sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1870, according to the EPA, and the rate of increase is expected to accelerate in the coming years. If current trends continue, many coastal areas — where roughly half of the Earth's human population lives — will be inundated.
Researchers project that by 2100, average sea levels will be 2.3 feet higher in New York City, 2.9 feet higher at Hampton Roads, Va., and 3.5 feet higher at Galveston, Texas, the EPA reports. According to the Sept. 27 IPCC report, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, sea levels could rise by as much as 3 feet (0.9 meters) by 2100. That estimate is an increase from the estimated 0.9 to 2.7 feet (0.3 to 0.8 meters) that was predicted in the 2007 IPCC report for future sea level rise.
Dire climate change predictions may seem like science fiction in many parts of the world. But in the tiny, sea-swept Pacific nation of Tuvalu, the crisis has already arrived.
Sea levels have risen between four and eight inches in the past 100 years. Current projections suggest that sea levels could continue to rise between 4 inches and 36 inches over the next 100 years.
A 36-inch increase in sea levels would swamp every city on the East Coast of the United States, from Miami to Boston.
Worldwide, approximately 100 million people live within three feet of sea level. Sea level rise associated with climate change could displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas – especially in developing countries. Inhabitants of some small island countries that rest barely above the existing sea level are already abandoning their islands, some of the world’s first climate change refugees.
The truth is far from what they are presenting.
Reference Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625 where the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data shows that of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr. This works out to 1.8 cm per decade or about 10 cm or 2 inches since 1950
So there are hucksters, scammers, and fraudsters in the scientific community but also legitimate scientists fighting for the truth in science.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-27-2014).]
I'm curious on how scientifically versed Arns and Fierobear are. I pose a simple question for them:
We know that it takes 1 calorie to heat 1 gram of water, 1 degree celsius.
We have 300 grams of water in a completely sealed and perfectly insulated standard 5L pressure cooker.
If the water starts off at 50*C, assuming all energy from the burner is transferred into the water, how many calories would it take to heat the water to 175*C?
Originally posted by Arns85GT: It takes only a casual observation to conclude that the protestations of the AGW proponents of global disaster, inundated islands, millions of climate refugees, increased hurricane activity, and an open Arctic Ocean are simply errant and false.
quote
By the 2080s, most land areas north of latitude 40°N, from Europe to the northern U.S. states and Canada, will see a jump in the number of days with precipitation greater than 0.40 inch (1 centimeter), according to NCAR research.
quote
Summer sea ice in the Arctic could decrease dramatically by the 2020s, according to climate-model studies that also suggest virtually ice-free Arctic summers are possible by 2040.
quote
According to the Sept. 27 IPCC report, if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, sea levels could rise by as much as 3 feet (0.9 meters) by 2100.
quote
Current projections suggest that sea levels could continue to rise between 4 inches and 36 inches over the next 100 years.
First off, thanks for proving my point that everything you claim to be a "false protestation" is a future prediction.
Second, It's amazing that you can see 100 years into the future. You should invest in some oil and coal stocks since you're so sure. After all, AGW is a hoax - right?
Of course you would. Yet another example of your not paying attention to what has been discussed here and another non-contribution you make to this thread.
Of course you would. Yet another example of your not paying attention to what has been discussed here and another non-contribution you make to this thread.
Marvin has made plenty of good points, all which you've chosen to ignore. Or are you having more computer problems that's preventing you from responding?
I'm curious on how scientifically versed Arns and Fierobear are. I pose a simple question for them:
We know that it takes 1 calorie to heat 1 gram of water, 1 degree celsius.
We have 300 grams of water in a completely sealed and perfectly insulated standard 5L pressure cooker.
If the water starts off at 50*C, assuming all energy from the burner is transferred into the water, how many calories would it take to heat the water to 175*C?
Ask Isaac Watts. This is a pressure/steam equation, nothing to do with climate
First off, thanks for proving my point that everything you claim to be a "false protestation" is a future prediction.
Second, It's amazing that you can see 100 years into the future. You should invest in some oil and coal stocks since you're so sure. After all, AGW is a hoax - right?
Of course you ignored the point, so I'll repeat it.
The truth is far from what they are presenting.
Reference Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625 where the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data shows that of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr. This works out to 1.8 cm per decade or about 10 cm or 2 inches since 1950
So there are hucksters, scammers, and fraudsters in the scientific community but also legitimate scientists fighting for the truth in science.
Of course you ignored the point, so I'll repeat it.
The truth is far from what they are presenting.
You just posted articles about future predictions, ranging from 2040 to 2100. The only person making "protestations" about inundated islands now is you, not the IPCC, not East Anglia, not NASA.
Somehow because islands aren't completely submerged NOW, and polar bears aren't extinct NOW, you claim that AGW is 100% a hoax.
But hey its snowing outside. All those stupid, corrupt climate scientists publishing peer reviewed work should have just looked outside before going to all that trouble.
... the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data shows that of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr.
You're just making this stuff up, aren't you? TOPEX/Poseidon wasn't launched until August, 1992, and was operational from 1993 until it failed in January, 2006. It could not possibly "show" a half-century trend except by substantial extrapolation. Do you have a citation to the original report? ... or is this just something else you quoted directly from a denier blog?
From this paper, published in Science magazine in 2010:
"Since the early 1990s, [Sea Level Rise] has been routinely measured by high-precision altimeter satellites. From 1993 to 2009, the mean rate of SLR amounts to 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (Fig. 1)(11), suggesting that SLR is accelerating."
This paper [reference (11) in the preceding paper], published in the journal Ocean Science in 2009, discusses uncertainties in current satellite-based sea level measurements.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-27-2014).]
Lawyers representing Mark Steyn against scientist Michael Mann have dropped their client: "Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client." Source.
Fred Smith, from the lobbyist organization Competitive Enterprise Institute recently showed what a lovely individual he is. CEI is the other defendant in Mann's lawsuit:
Well, lawsuits do make people cranky.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-27-2014).]
He is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
In this recorded interview he explained how the myth of the sea rising is a total fraud. You can read it at your leisure
Originally posted by Arns85GT: He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution
The organization you're using to lend him credentials doesn't support his opinion. Which is probably why he's a past president of a commission.
From their website: INQUA STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is real There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. Source.
From Wiki: Recently, [INQUA] issued a statement on climate change in which they reiterated the conclusions of the [IPCC]. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-28-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is the face of Global Warming in much of North America this year
"The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space." Source.
He is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
In this recorded interview he explained how the myth of the sea rising is a total fraud. You can read it at your leisure
Arn
Seems like a real winner...
quote
Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...". In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works. Mörner declined the offer.
Wouldn't even back up his belief in dowsing!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-28-2014).]
"The rallying cry of the denialists — “It’s really cold outside, so global warming must be a crock!” — can be taken seriously only by those with a toddler’s limited conception of time and space." Source.
Spin, spin, spin. Keep relinflating the warming bubble with yet another study full of projections from computer models. Meanwhile, temperatures remain flat, as I just posted from NASA and Hadley.
Oh, and since when is an OPINION piece acceptable to you? Oh, that's right, you don't have to live up to your own standards.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-28-2014).]
More ad hominem and bullshit. Because he may believe in one thing, that supposedly invalidates his work in science. I've seen that same argument used when a scientist believes in God. Yet another argument of insult and misdirection.
Originally posted by fierobear: Spin, spin, spin. Keep relinflating the warming bubble with yet another study full of projections from computer models. Meanwhile, temperatures remain flat, as I just posted from NASA and Hadley.
Funny how you never seem to respond when your quackery is called out. But when there's room for trash talk suddenly you stop having computer problems.
Funny how you never seem to respond when your quackery is called out. But when there's room for trash talk suddenly you stop having computer problems.
More bullshit. I have provided PLENTY of responses, backing up what I say, including mathematical proof which you have yet to refute. You simply won't admit it.
By the way, thank you for providing me with an example for my point with Marvin, although I wouldn't expect either of you to admit it...
Sure they would! WUWT has a blog post
Oh, and I also noticed the drinking reference, which I assume refers to the recent thread about new years resolutions. I KNEW you would make reference to it. You are EXACTLY the kind of low life piece of s*** who would take such a personal anecdote and try to use it as an ad hominem attack in another thread. Thank you once again for proving that there is no depth to which you won't go. I just love it's when my opponent presents such a weak argument that they feel they need to use insults to win, and punctuates it by calling themself an a** hole!
LOL, give FlyinFieros enough rope, and he will hang himself every time.
More ad hominem and bullshit. Because he may believe in one thing, that supposedly invalidates his work in science. I've seen that same argument used when a scientist believes in God. Yet another argument of insult and misdirection.
Goes to his character, you know..... wouldn't put up when faced with a direct challenge. I'm sure you can relate.
Goes to his character, you know..... wouldn't put up when faced with a direct challenge. I'm sure you can relate.
WRONG. that is nothing more than a personal attack intended to undermine his legitimate credentials, which are as follows:
Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project.[2]
Oh, and I also noticed the drinking reference ... You are EXACTLY the kind of low life piece of s*** who would take such a personal anecdote and try to use it as an ad hominem attack ...
Aren't you the guy who started a thread headlined "Only post in this thread when you're drunk" and has remained one of its most prolific contributors?
Originally posted by fierobear: More bullshit. I have provided PLENTY of responses, backing up what I say, including mathematical proof which you have yet to refute. You simply won't admit it.
See, you don't seem to have computer problems when the subject is trash talk. But when you're exposed as a liar and have no denier blogs to turn to because you got the lies from them, oh suddenly you've got the all kinds of problems preventing you from replying.
You generally avoid proving anything, for that matter.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: By the way, thank you for providing me with an example for my point with Marvin, although I wouldn't expect either of you to admit it...
Sure they would! WUWT has a blog post
I used them as an example due to the content of the blog. I used the content on the blog to discredit them.
I did not instantly discredit them because they were a blog like you seem to think.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, and I also noticed the drinking reference, which I assume refers to the recent thread about new years resolutions.
It was about you being in an angry mood all the time. You seriously need to relax. No surprise all you require is your own half baked assumption to green light throwing a tantrum:
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You are EXACTLY the kind of low life piece of s***
I just love it's when my opponent presents such a weak argument that they feel they need to use insults to win
Do you not realize how foolish you act?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: LOL, give [fierobear] enough rope, and he will hang himself every time.
Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG. that is nothing more than a personal attack intended to undermine his legitimate credentials, which are as follows:
It fits other evidence that shows what a crackpot he is: "Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising." Source.
Arn posted evidence that sea levels are rising then quotes a guy who says sea levels are not rising at all only a few posts later.
Only you would defend that nonsense instead of policing your own.
Originally posted by fierobear: New paper finds the Arctic was warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period
The paper looks at AD 550 – 1980. "The present" is not 34 years ago. And 65 trees from a single location? Not impressed. More robust evidence refutes your opinion on what that scientific paper means. The following studies are multi-site multi-proxy vs your single site single proxy:
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling: "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-28-2014).]
More bullshit. I have provided PLENTY of responses, backing up what I say, including mathematical proof which you have yet to refute. You simply won't admit it.
Name a single source of yours that hasn't been completely refuted and discredited (including this so-called "mathematical proof" - wasn't it you that said earlier that science could NEVER be proven?)
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 01-28-2014).]
