General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
You've already given up on that, since you provide nothing new. So we'll move on.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclu...level_data.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698


And it still


Sometimes poking the village idiot (Fuckyouformakingmeregister) is fun.

So did you read the wiki page about Nils-Axel Morner or not? Maybe you did but you missed the parts where he has been denounced by the organizations he led, that he believes in water-witching, AND ONLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH SEA LEVEL CHANGE DATA, NOT GLOBAL WARMING IN GENERAL. Oh, and he's one guy.

Two articles about what ONE guy thinks about sea level changes - note how no one else supports him - is NOT proof that global warming isn't partly caused by human factors.

You had a few days to respond to my points but you basically ignored them all and posted the same shit you did before.
Old 04-23-2008, 01:41 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#346  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
That would be you reading the summary and not the detailed report. I read the report and pointed out how the report itself - not the people involved in the report - ...

Your opinion or the words of 400 scientists that debunk a gw consensus...... hmmm.....

Oh, and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly
You've already given up on that, since you provide nothing new. So we'll move on.
We're done with this until you provide something new.
Old 04-23-2008, 01:57 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#347  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
So did you read the wiki page

So did you read how the gw ters got caught fudging the numbers? We all did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
And newer proof posted by ephekt shows the "man-made gw" ters fudged their data and destroyed evidence, all of which is dated June and December 2007.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclu...level_data.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

Here's some more for you to choke on. And it's so easy to find now that gw bandwagon is breaking down.

Quote:
Contaminated data
Hot cities, not CO2, cause urban thermometers to rise
...
First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument. Its claim that it is due to natural circulation changes contradicts its later (and prominently advertised) claims that recent warming patterns cannot be attributed to natural atmospheric circulation changes. Second, the claim that our evidence is statistically insignificant is, in my opinion, a plain fabrication. The IPCC offered no supporting evidence. Confronted with two lines of independent evidence that the data set on which it bases its fundamental conclusions is contaminated, it conceded the point, but then dismissed it on the basis of non-existent counter-evidence.

This is no mere tiff among duelling experts. The IPCC has a monopoly on scientific advising to governments concerning climate change. Governments who never think to conduct due diligence on IPCC reports send delegates to plenary meetings at which they formally "accept" the conclusions of IPCC reports. Thereafter they are unable -- legally and politically -- to dissent from its conclusions. In the years ahead, people around the world, including here in Canada, could bear costs of climate policies running to hundreds of billions of dollars, based on these conclusions. And the conclusions are based on data that the IPCC lead authors concede exhibits a contamination pattern that undermines their interpretation of it, a problem they concealed with untrue claims.

Our new paper presents a new, larger data set with a more complete set of socioeconomic indicators. We showed that the spatial pattern of warming trends is so tightly correlated with indicators of economic activity that the probability they are unrelated is less than one in 14 trillion. We applied a string of statistical tests to show that the correlation is not a fluke or the result of biased or inconsistent statistical modelling. We showed that the contamination patterns are largest in regions experiencing real economic growth. And we showed that the contamination patterns account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980.

In other words, we have confirmed, on new and stronger grounds, that the IPCC's global surface-temperature data is exaggerated, with a large warming bias. Claims about the amount of surface warming since 1980, and its attribution to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, should be reassessed using uncontaminated data. And governments that rely on the IPCC for advice should begin asking why it was allowed to suppress earlier evidence of this problem.
-- Ross McKitrick is associate professor and director of graduate studies, Department of Economics, University of Guelph.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=145245

Oh, hell, I'll save a lot of time and end this too:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IPCC+false+data
Old 04-23-2008, 02:19 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#348  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Your opinion or the words of 400 scientists that debunk a gw consensus...... hmmm.....

Oh, and:

We're done with this until you provide something new.

No, we're not done because you still haven't acknowledged that the 400 debunkers aren't really debunkers, as per the actual report. I again suggest that you read it and not just the summary before making any conclusions.

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 04-23-2008 at 02:57 PM.. Reason: spelling
Old 04-23-2008, 02:34 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#349  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
So did you read how the gw ters got caught fudging the numbers? We all did.

Here's some more for you to choke on. And it's so easy to find now that gw bandwagon is breaking down.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=145245

Oh, hell, I'll save a lot of time and end this too:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IPCC+false+data

Interesting article. A few things should be pointed out:

- Ross McKitrick, the author of the opinion piece, is an economist.

- He attributes much of the observed warming in urban areas to socio-economic factors - i.e.: human-caused.

- He only has a problem with 1980 and on data about surface warming.

- His data from 2004 was calculated using degrees instead of radians, giving him faulty results

- He fails to acknowledge the possibility that the IPCC was right about his data being statistically insignificant when combined with information about the Arctic Ossillation.

Taken together, this article does not provide adequate grounds for dismissing the IPCC's general conclusions.

As to your google search results, you'll have to pick an article or articles you support, otherwise my search results are better than yours:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...C+true+data%22

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...IPCC+was+wrong

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 04-23-2008 at 03:02 PM..
Old 04-23-2008, 02:57 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#350  

d_brow
 
did anyone mention that 50% of CO2 is due to decaying matter?
cause that plays a big role
Old 04-23-2008, 06:51 PM d_brow is offline  
Reply With Quote
#351  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
No, we're not done because you still haven't acknowledged that the 400 debunkers aren't really debunkers, as per the actual report. I again suggest that you read it and not just the summary before making any conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Your opinion or the words of 400 scientists that debunk a gw consensus...... hmmm.....

Oh, and:

We're done with this until you provide something new.
Old 04-24-2008, 10:51 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#352  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
Interesting article. A few things should be pointed out:

- Ross McKitrick, the author of the opinion piece, is an economist.

....

Yet he got the IPCC to admit their data was wrong (contaminated).

Quote:
Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. They then attribute it to greenhouse gases, since (they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened, however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.

So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument. Its claim that it is due to natural circulation changes contradicts its later (and prominently advertised) claims that recent warming patterns cannot be attributed to natural atmospheric circulation changes. Second, the claim that our evidence is statistically insignificant is, in my opinion, a plain fabrication. The IPCC offered no supporting evidence. Confronted with two lines of independent evidence that the data set on which it bases its fundamental conclusions is contaminated, it conceded the point, but then dismissed it on the basis of non-existent counter-evidence.
I'll bet you were close to crying when you saw that your bandwagon fad was created with fudged numbers.
Old 04-24-2008, 11:09 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#353  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Yet he got the IPCC to admit their data was wrong (contaminated).


I'll bet you were close to crying when you saw that your bandwagon fad was created with fudged numbers.

No he didn't, despite what he says. The IPCC acknowledged the criticisms in his paper and said that when his data was combined with the Arctic Ossillation, it became irrelevant. He just thinks that's an incoherent argument.

And again, he's an economist, he's one guy, he still believes there is warming and that it is human caused, and he only has a problem with 1980 and on surface temperature data.

Not a very good case for your "there is no warming but if there is, it's all natural" argument.

EDIT: And I guess you're just ignoring my points about Nils now? :-)

Last edited by Fuckyouformakingmeregister; 04-24-2008 at 12:23 PM..
Old 04-24-2008, 12:19 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#354  

Badger_sly
 
In summary on what has been proven to you on this point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
Yet he got the IPCC to admit their data was wrong (contaminated).

Quote:
Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.
So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.
Old 04-28-2008, 06:40 AM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#355  

Xayd
 
newsbusters and blogs. sup viriik, how's the hearing aid. not too good apparently.
Old 04-28-2008, 07:18 AM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#356  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
In summary on what has been proven to you on this point:


Yeah, I read that. He can claim they conceded significant data contamination all he wants, but they didn't. What they did do is point out his criticism in their report and had a response to the criticism; specifically that when his data was combined with data concerning the Arctic Ossillation it showed no significant difference.

Did you also happen to forget that:
- he's one guy
- he's an economist
- he still believes humans have influenced global temperatures
- he is only concerned about 1980 surface data, which contrary to his assertion, is not the single fundamental data set on which all IPCC conclusions are based


P.S.: Are you actually viirik? Because that would explain a lot.
Old 04-28-2008, 12:23 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#357  

Straw Man
RuHo
And my head I'd be scratchin' while my thoughts were busy hatchin; If I only had a brain......
 
Straw Man's Avatar
 
While he's equally as annoying, Viriik really wasn't THAT fucking stupid.
__________________
"dogs came to man to make friends and help us hunt and guard unlike pigs"
-lolergay
Old 04-28-2008, 12:50 PM Straw Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
#358  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
This chart looks ominous until put into the context that the average temperature for 1901-2000 is 13.9C (57.0F), so we are talking about a change from about 13.5 to 14.3 C or 56.3 to 57. 7 F. Scientifically, we should use absolute temperatures, which would add an additional 273 C (460 F) degrees. In this context the increase is about 0.3 % Note on the chart that this premier data set puts the observed global warming at 0.42 deg. C (0.8 deg F) above the mean. As seen below, this increase since the mid 1800s is similar to that since the year 1000, although IPCC says the present temperature is likely higher. Greenland ice cores indicate that the start of the instrumented data (thermometers) coincides with a cold period in the northern hemisphere and that at the site of a well-studied ice core, the temperature in the mid 1800s was the coldest in 8,000 years.
...


Quote:
The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323

Last edited by TheMorlock; 04-28-2008 at 11:23 PM..
Old 04-28-2008, 11:11 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#359  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
...

Good job linking the sources!

Your first quote says:
- the change in temperature isn't that much (lol at how it does actually say the earth is warmer now than it was - something you've been arguing against this entire thread)
- the year 1800 was the coldest in 8,000 years
- since 1800, the earth has warmed as much as it had between 1000 and 1800

Your second quote says:
- the temperature has risen in 100 years (lol again at you quoting something you've claimed hasn't occured)
- if the temperature rise is due to humans, it's not that significant
- the IPCC has dealt with some urban heat issues but not others
- some of the measurement protocols have changed
- skeptics believe warming is part of a natural cycle

So are these two quotes supposed to convince us that there is no human induced global warming? Because they don't.

And you probably already know that.
Old 04-28-2008, 11:47 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#360  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.