[Sivad]

I find it odd that a clear discussion on the uncertainty of one form of data, used in one graph, s now evidence that the whole field of climate science is wrong.

It's not one form of data, we can run right through all of it from the proxies to the instruments to the models, it's all a hot load. The case for CAGW is rickety as fuck, anyone trying to pretend otherwise is either an idiot or a fraud.

The proxies are the bedrock of the entire case for CAGW, if you can't even show that the last few decades are the warmest decades in at least a thousand years then what the fuck are we even talking about? If the proxy record is unreliable then the whole thing collapses.

And a thousand years is nothing in climatological time, the warmest decades in a one thousand year time span doesn't really prove all that much. They would need an accurate record for at least the last ten thousand years to show that the last thirty years are well outside natural variability in order to really prove anything.

All of it is highly speculative, they don't fully understand the climate system, they don't have accurate or reliable records of past climate, they haven't even identified, let alone quantified, all the variables, and all their future projections have been way off.


Most proxy reconstructions aren't even for the entire globe, they're for the northern hemisphere only. They don't know what the fuck was going on in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. The data for those is extremely limited. The whole thing is a fucking joke.

[Truth To Power]

I find it odd that a clear discussion on the uncertainty of one form of data,

Please present evidence that there has been a clear discussion of uncertainty involving one form of data. Thank you. When you have done so, we can proceed with the discussion.

used in one graph, s now evidence that the whole field of climate science is wrong.

Please present your evidence that someone has said the whole field of climate science is wrong. Thank you. When you have done so, we can proceed with the discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not one form of data, we can run right through all of it from the proxies to the instruments to the models, it's all a hot load. The case for CAGW is rickety as fuck, anyone trying to pretend otherwise is either an idiot or a fraud.

The proxies are the bedrock of the entire case for CAGW, if you can't even show that the last few decades are the warmest decades in at least a thousand years then what the fuck are we even talking about? If the proxy record is unreliable then the whole thing collapses.

And a thousand years is nothing in climatological time, the warmest decades in a one thousand year time span doesn't really prove all that much. They would need an accurate record for at least the last ten thousand years to show that the last thirty years are well outside natural variability in order to really prove anything.

All of it is highly speculative, they don't fully understand the climate system, they don't have accurate or reliable records of past climate, they haven't even identified, let alone quantified, all the variables, and all their future projections have been way off.

Take a deep breath. Calm down. Stop swearing.

If there are so many problems, you should find it easy to provide evidence for all these claims.

Just do so.

———————-

@Truth To Power

If you have an argument, please state it clearly and provide evidence, or link to said evidence if you think someone else has already provided it.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
If you have an argument, please state it clearly and provide evidence, or link to said evidence if you think someone else has already provided it.

Is that intended to constitute a retraction of your claim that someone has said the whole of climate science is wrong?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

This habit you have (of chasing people around and debating their debate instead of the argument) makes it difficult to discuss topics with you.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

This habit you have (of chasing people around and debating their debate instead of the argument) makes it difficult to discuss topics with you.

You like to accuse others of strawman fallacies, but don't want me identifying your strawman fallacies. I get it.

[Pants-of-dog]

You like to accuse others of strawman fallacies, but don't want me identifying your strawman fallacies. I get it.

If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

Have a good day.

[Truth To Power]

If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

How many "minor details" does it take to add up to a consistent pattern of deceit and dishonesty? How long do we have to give the benefit of the doubt when it's, "OK, we lied about that evidence, and cherry picked this evidence, and manipulated the other evidence, but this time you should trust us!"

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you arguing that a pattern of deception exists?

[Truth To Power]

Are you arguing that a pattern of deception exists?

I am stating the fact that it exists, and was indisputably confirmed by the Climategate emails.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am stating the fact that it exists, and was indisputably confirmed by the Climategate emails.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Also, please clarify exactly who is deceiving whom.

[Truth To Power]

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

From the Harry Read Me file created by Ian Harris, who was responsible for altering the CRU's data to support the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign:

"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

"So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths."

“I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.”

"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it."

"So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!"

"Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!"

"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot star[t] in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

"So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

"Because although I'm thrilled at the high match rate (87%!), it does seem worse when you realise that you lost the rest.."

Also, please clarify exactly who is deceiving whom.

Effectively all the "scientists" who claim CO2 controls temperature rather than the other way around are deceiving everyone else. Government custodians of climate data like NASA and NOAA are deceiving scientists.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, you see a pattern of deception in these out of context quotes. Despite the fact that all these quotes could easily be innocuous.

And I asked you to clarify exactly who is deceiving whom. Adding another accusation does not clarify anything, nor is it exact.

[Truth To Power]

So, you see a pattern of deception in these out of context quotes.

Yes, because I am willing to know facts. You refuse to know any facts that prove your beliefs are false.

Despite the fact that all these quotes could easily be innocuous.

No. Each of them individually could be innocuous in some context. Not all of them in this context.

And I asked you to clarify exactly who is deceiving whom. Adding another accusation does not clarify anything, nor is it exact.

So, you are saying that unless I can identify the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS who have committed or are committing the deception, you will refuse to know the fact that any deception has occurred or is occurring. That's exactly what I mean by your refusal to know facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

That post has no real argunents in it.

It seems to be mostly ad hominem.

[SSDR]

That post has no real argunents in it.

It seems to be mostly ad hominem.

That post has no real argunents in it.

It is ad hominem.

If you want to ignore my actual point (i.e. that minor details are being used to discredit far more than those details actually discredit) and focus solely on my use of hyperbole, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

You purposefully make your arguments as manipulative tools to entrap your opponents so you can "win." It is common sense to not address an argument like that.

makes it difficult to discuss topics with you

Why are you having a difficult time debating?

[blackjack21]

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

From the Harry Read Me file created by Ian Harris, who was responsible for altering the CRU's data to support the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign:

"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

"So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths."

“I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.”

"Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it."

"So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally. It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!"

"Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!"

"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot star[t] in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

"So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

"Because although I'm thrilled at the high match rate (87%!), it does seem worse when you realise that you lost the rest.."

Effectively all the "scientists" who claim CO2 controls temperature rather than the other way around are deceiving everyone else. Government custodians of climate data like NASA and NOAA are deceiving scientists.

The Harry_README.txt was what finally did it for me--effectively cemented my doubt in the whole enterprise and made me assume I was being lied to. I'm not a climate scientist, but I do work in computer science. Among the scientific users of my last project include Lawrence Livermore National Lab (not far from where I live), Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia National Lab, Los Alamos National Lab, and CERN. Of course, three of our five armed military branches use it too along with certain three letter agencies that like to spy on everyone. So I'm pretty well versed in data management. Though "harry" doesn't seem to be skilled enough to do the job, the entire enterprise at HadCRU, to use an English expression, was utterly "higgledy-piggledy" as my Nana would say about my bedroom when I was a young boy.

Anyway, for your added amusement, here are a few more articles:

Michael E Mann, Loser

Jessica Alba doesn't diss him like that, and Doctor Fraudpants sees no reason why anyone else should be allowed to.

Doctor Fraudpants! Mann's public statement following the dismissal is bleeding funny too:

There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

The defendant Ball did not 'win' the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball's defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

The provision in the Court's order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball's legal fees.

This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball's allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.

The "alleged exercise of a discretion of the court"? This guy is hilarious. Michael Mann argues just like Pants-of-dog. Hilarious. Not only was Mann's case dismissed, it was dismissed with prejudice and with an award of legal fees to the defendant. Hopefully, Mann does not pay the fees and faces criminal contempt of court and gets incarcerated for his recalcitrance.

[Pants-of-dog]

I see that people cannot understand basic concepts of law.

To simplify: the case was dismissed because it was taking too long, and it had nothing to do with the claims made by either party.

[Truth To Power]

I see that people cannot understand basic concepts of law.

Some people can't understand even more basic concepts, like dishonesty.

To simplify: the case was dismissed because it was taking too long, and it had nothing to do with the claims made by either party.

Wrong. It was taking too long because Lyin' Michael Mann refused to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims, but wouldn't withdraw his suit, either.

[Pants-of-dog]

I like how you say I am wrong and then repeat the same facts I just mentioned.