Meh.
I deal with inner city kids that could send the gangs on me, besides I knew the job was dangerous when I took it.
You are barking up the wrong tree. In this pit I just needed to show that you resort to conspiracy theories to explain away the failure of defeating guys like Mann in the research world.
Grow a pair. Go bark at the right tree. The biggest foolish thing was to suppose that a pit discussion was going to be meaningful for your cause.
Is this real enough?
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
I couldn’t give a shit about CO2…what needs to be done is to deal with facilities emitting the horrific kinds of emissions that these Chinese plants are doing right now. But I guess CO2 is the real culprit…:rolleyes:
Yes it is real, next question.
Or did you forgot that I said that they are not doing enough or that I was referring just to the CO2 issue? What makes you think I would not care also about the criminal nature of a good chunk of the development in China?
I would like everyone to note that, having made a false, scurrilous and libellous accusation about Steve McIntyre, who is a decent and honest man, GIGO who believes in AGW refuses to provide a single citation to back it up. Not one.
He also doesn’t have the balls to say he was wrong. Instead, he wants to distract you from the issue with “funny” lines about “inner city kids” and fantasies that I resort to “conspiracy theories”.
I would also like to note that upthread I falsely accused GIGO who believes in AGW and L. G. Butts, Ph.D. of wanting to waste money on Kyoto rather than put it into something useful. When they pointed out the fact that what I said was not true, I sincerely apologized to both of them for my actions. I was wrong, and when I found out I was wrong, I did what most of you do in that situation — I admitted my error and I apologized to those I had wrongfully accused.
I invite everyone to remember this whole incident the next time GIGO who believes in AGW opens his dishonest and deceitful mouth. He is quite willing to lie, is unable to provide citations for the bullshit he is trying to peddle, and will not admit it when he is caught stealing red-handed from the ethical till.
Fortunately, most AGW supporters are not like that, most are honest people. But don’t mistake GIGO for an honest person. He is an unrepentant and unregenerate liar who takes no responsibility for his words. He is all to happy to libel a good man’s reputation, even at the cost of his own. He is not only willing to cut off his own nose to spite his face, he thinks it is a triumph of modern plastic surgery.
So I’ll now bid GIGO goodbye. As the old adage says, never wrestle with a pig — you both get dirty, but the pig likes the filth … so I’ll let him continue his lying ways without further comment from me. Through his actions in this thread, he has revealed his own pathetic true nature far better than my own poor words ever could.
However, I’m happy to discuss these matters with anyone else.
Meh, in the links at DeepClimate cite they mention where McIntyre made the allegation.
I was not bothering to point it to you because you already demonstrated how hopeless you are on investigating sources, I wanted to see how far you would trip and you did not disappoint. 
Finally, when I say to go bark up the right tree it is referring to my usual advice to mislead fellows, it is not to guys like Mann that your barking should go but to guys like McIntyre that are deceiving you.
Ah, well, back to the pig wrestling, GIGO’s nonsense has to be at least protested so the credulous are not fooled …
From my cite above (emphasis mine):
What part of “It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.” don’t you understand? He said it because he felt he was being misrepresented, so that it would be clear even to people like you.
In your citation, Steve says that if you don’t release all of the data, people can’t tell if you cherry picked what you used or not … sorry, GIGO, that’s not an accusation of cherry picking. That’s a fact. If you don’t release all the data, there is no way to determine if you are cherry picking. Or as Steve said,
If you can’t understand the difference between saying that if the data is unavailable (for whatever reason) there is no way to tell if you are cheating or not, and an accusation that you are cheating, you are not only a liar.
You are a stupid liar.
That’s why Nature and Science have policies requiring the archiving of all of the data. So we can tell if someone is cheating or not. Which Briffa, as you point out, kinda complied with … partially … after ten years of requests …
And you think that’s science? The mind boggles.
Nope, I also decided not to post the moments and comments where he does refer to the cherry picking.
Hint: they are on the rest of the link in my post.
But I also did it because I knew you would fell for it by not checking the rest of the linked page.
Pathetic, but just as predictable. 
And just to show that I’m not just pretending that the “traps” were set and that you are still falling for it, you should had found already that McIntire did had the data.
Should I bother to mention to this “climate researcher that doesn’t do anything” where the link that points to how clueless he is? Again?..
Oh, Snowmiser is jus jellus of my great hairdo.
Anyway, people should make a choice. Who’s ‘opinion’ carries more weight. Some dude with ties to the mining industry who’s not a climate scientist (eg. McIntyre), anonymous message board people or climate scientists and the vast majority of scientists of good repute in related fields.
And really, the real debate should be how to handle the situation. That’s where there a lots of unknowns and possibly disastrous courses of action. When energies are wasted on these distractions, politicians may, with the best of intentions, make horrible policies (eg. pushing corn ethanol, IMO). I think this should be the focus.
What’s your point? (Nice pictures BTW. Thanks for the link.)
This thread has been really amusing for me, it is just chock full of the type of shit I was pitting.
Look, just because the Chinese are dumping all kinds of crap into the water and air, does not mean that global warming is not happening which is the entire point of this thread. I don’t believe there has been anybody in this thread that has made calls to cut our greenhouse gas emissions, but this what you seem to be hung up on. If you want to pit the doom sayers that are calling for immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption, go for it. If you want to pit the Chinese for poisoning their citizenry, go for it (though we did the same thing as we were industrializing. I can show you pictures from the early 20th century America and Western Europe and pictures from the last 50 years in Eastern Europe that look very similar. What do you want to do, tell them they have to go back to their farms?).
This thread is about the whole anti-science movement in America and the prevailing view that science is just opinions. This thread is about the politicization of science. This thread is about people like intention (who, BTW, I wish to thank for participating in this thread and giving me soooooo much amusement), who will latch on to one peice of evidence and state that this invalidates all the research to date (intention, it’s like you’re a creationist or something) when all it is is another data point. An interesting one, sure, but not definitive in and of itself. This thread is about those people who are willing to accept the opinion of a small group of people, some of whom are scientists, many with ties to petroleum industry, over the vast majority of scientists in a variety of fields with thousands of peer reviewed studies that show the effects of global climate change (including all the things I mentioned in my OP like disappearing glaciers, melting permafrost, melting poles, species migrating northward and up in elevation, earlier and longer growing seasons, lakes and waterways melting earlier, etc…).
So, for the purpose of this thread, I don’t give a shit about China and whether they are doing anything about Climate change. We could have a rational discussion about whether they should, or we should, or even whether developing countries in Africa should, and you know what, you and I would probably agree on the answer, albeit for different reasons. And that is because it is not clear to me, or for that matter it is not clear to most rational people who have thought about it, that
[ol]
[li]We can do anything to stop or slow the warming appreciably (due to the time constant of the carbon cycle, the behavior of countries like China and India, and the non-linear complex nature of global climate, etc…).[/li][li]Climate change is going to be necessarily bad for humanity as a whole or for the U.S. specifically. (Note, this says nothing about people living in Bangladesh or other tropical, coastal countries). There is evidence that says it could be bad, but it is far from conclusive at this point.[/li][li]Hi Opal.[/li][li]That if we decided, as a global population, to cut carbon emissions, that we could cut them deep enough to have any effect.[/li][li]That if we decided, as a global population, to cut carbon emissions, that this “cure” wouldn’t be worse than the “disease” for many people due primarily to population pressures and the low standard of living of the vast majority of the world population.[/li][li]That if the industrialized countries (specifically the US and Western Europe) decided to cut our carbon emissions, that the efforts to do so would have a net negative economic impact.[/li][li]That the invisible hand of the market may not just fix the problem due to increasing costs of ever diminishing supplies of fossil fuels.[/li][li]That a natural effect, heretofore overlooked, will stop and reverse the warming making the whole debate null and void. [/li][/ol]
We just don’t know all these things, and people who say they do are lying, guessing, simplifying, or they have a political agenda. But we do know that the Earth has been fucking warming. The evidence is manifold, regardless of intention’s ability to find conflicting evidence in one or two peer reviewed studies. He can go ahead and use these studies to disagree with the thousands of scientists (including the scientists that authored the studies he is using) that feel confident that global climate change is occurring. You can even agree with him if you want, I don’t care. But if you do, then this pit thread is about you too, and I can only believe that you are stupid or have an agenda. At this point, there is just no reason to deny that climate change is occurring, just like there is no reason to deny the fact that evolution happens or that mass vaccination is an effective method for controlling disease.
Hmmm … let’s review the bidding. I said that overall the earth warmed over the 20th century. I said it was warming in 1988, and that it was cooling in 1970. Which is why Stephen Schneider was predicting an upcoming ice age in 1970. I said it is not warming now, and that this has been noted by Science Magazine, although it certainly might start up again. I said it has warmed since the Little Ice Age in the 1600s. I said it warmed from 1910 to 1945.
So yes, the earth has been warming, and it has been cooling, since there has been an earth. At any given time it is either warming, or cooling, or neither. For the last ten years, it has been neither. For the last century, it has been warming. Over the last 10,000 years, it has been cooling, we’re currently at the cold end of the Holocene. Since the last interglacial (~ 125,000 year ago) it has been cooling. Since 1750, it has been warming. Is this so hard to understand?
Or as the headline of the article in Science said, … “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit”. Which means the earth is not warming now, duh, but some scientists say that the warming will return. Yes, the earth “has been fucking warming”, and it also has been fucking cooling, since the dawn of the earth. But as Science says … right now, it’s not doing either.
It is interesting how every time the earth either warms or cools for a decade or so, somebody like L. G. Butts or Stephen Schneider or the US Weather Bureau jumps up and down to tell us that we’re going to either freeze or burn, that we’re off to climate hell in a handbasket. Here’s the latest:
Oh, wait, I read the date on that quotation wrong, it’s actually from 1922 …
I don’t mind being attacked for what I have said. Being attacked for not saying what I have said, however, is a curious tactic on your part. The earth has been warming … and it has been cooling. I have said both.
Hmmmm…on one side we have the IPCC report, a carefully vetted, multi-year effort which takes a look at all the data available.
On the other side, we have crackpots and people who don’t understand the term “statistical trend”.
Decisions, decisions. Who shall I believe?
Well, you might start with Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT …
Or on the other hand, you could go with the consensus.
Michael Crichton? Really?
Or how about I go with Nobel laureate, winner of both the Great Medal of the Academy of Sciences of France and the US National Medal of Science, and former co-chair of the scientific panel of the IPCC, Dr. Susan Solomon?
Go with whoever you want … but Susan Solomon? The woman who thinks that there is no reason to be transparent at the IPCC? The woman who thinks that we should just believe what the IPCC says and we should not ask inconvenient questions? Well, it’s your choice.
Me, I go with science, that is to say evidence and replicable studies, not with argument from authority. But like I said, if you want to believe Susan Solomon because of her impressive CV, and ignore her reprehensible actions, it’s up to you.
Your hypocrisy is amusing, Richard “More Money, Please, Exxon-Mobil!” Lindzen-lover.
Also, your interpretations of Dr. Solomon’s responses are…silly. No reason to be transparent?
Translation: “Follow the rules, dickhead.”
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention … Susan Solomon didn’t get her Nobel the old-fashioned way, by doing science. In fact, it is not a Nobel Prize for science at all, it had nothing to do with doing science. She is a climate scientist, that much is true. But she (along with a number of people who, according to the IPCC, have absolutely no science experience at all) got it for being a member a bureaucracy which does no science, but only summarizes science. So her prize is not for her knowledge of climate science.
I suppose that is impressive to you. To me … not so much.
It never ceases to amuse when people try to minimize the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. :rolleyes:
It must dawn on you by now that our intrepid denier does not know when an argument from authority is a fallacy.
He also just demonstrated that it was reporters in popular media that failed history forever, I already posted on the stupidity of making the point that climate researchers were all predicting an ice age in the 70’s, Popular media was and is a different thing.
As for his comment that he said that it was warming and cooling, it is just the old argument of tails I win, heads you lose. A Useless argument as he is.
It is by taking other factors into account that scientists can be confident that even with the apparent no change in the last 10 years that the earth is still warming.
Read the whole story. Do some independent research on your own. All you’ve said so far is “Susan is right because Susan says she’s right.” I see you are easily impressed. Susan made up her own rules and didn’t follow the IPCC rules, dickhead.
But like I said, it’s up to you who you believe, it’s meaningless to me. Me, I don’t believe anyone based on whether they received 1/4000 of a Peace prize, or based on whether they are funded by Exxon (who doesn’t believe in AGW) or the NSF (who do believe in NSF). What do those things have to do with whether what the person says is true or not? Absolutely nothing, that’s what.
I don’t give a shit who wrote a study. I care what the study says, whether the science is sound, whether the study is replicable, whether the data is archived, whether the math is correct, whether the logic works, whether the information is solid. It’s the old-fashioned way, deciding things on the basis of the science involved, not on the basis of who wrote the study or who funded it.