3rd IPCC report out today. "It is now or never" to massively act on climate change - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15256200
late wrote:You tried that before, dumbass.

And I demolished and humiliated you.
It wasn't until the 1970s computers got powerful enough to model the climate, and those were incredibly expensive. So it was only DARPA and Big Oil that could afford them.

Thanks for agreeing that I am right. You don't need big computers to look at a thermometer and write down the number, and that's all people needed to do to confirm that the world had cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s, proving me right and you wrong.
That has never been challenged,

Of course that is just baldly false.
it is the consensus theory of climatology, and supported by the larger scientific community.

It is supported by a bunch of politically controlled organizations, not by actual scientists.

You keep repeating crap, and that's all it is.

Dumbass crap that's oil propaganda. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that prostitution..

More false and ridiculous personal accusations from you with not a scintilla of evidence.

Who should be ashamed, here....?
#15256203
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I think you are incorrect.

And I will go further and say that you will not support this accusation with evidence.

I already have, many times, as you know: the Lyin' Michael Mann hockey stick fraud, the climategate emails, etc. are all highly persuasive evidence if you are willing to consider evidence. You aren't. Simple.

And I will go further and state that you will continue to claim I do not support my statements with evidence although you are aware that I do.
#15256217
Truth To Power wrote:It was the down-phase of the ~60y ocean circulation cycle. We have been over this before, many times, and your only "argument" is refusal to know the relevant facts.


No, I think this is incorrect.

And I will go further and predict that you will not provide evidence.

Truth To Power wrote:I already have, many times, as you know: the Lyin' Michael Mann hockey stick fraud, the climategate emails, etc. are all highly persuasive evidence if you are willing to consider evidence. You aren't. Simple.

And I will go further and state that you will continue to claim I do not support my statements with evidence although you are aware that I do.


My prediction seems to be correct.

Your ad hominem against Michael Mann and the infamous hockey graph also seems to be wrong:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2S112H


    Fact Check-'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change
    By Reuters Fact Check
    6 MIN READ

    A video viewed thousands of times online disputes the reliability of an authoritative graph showing cooling global temperatures over 1,000 years and rapid warming in the 20th century. A speaker in the clip claims the chart falsely inflates the impact of man-made climate change. However, the graph is a reliable marker of warming temperatures largely as a result of human activity, climate experts told Reuters.

    The clip features a man named Ben Deniston giving a virtual presentation.

    Deniston shows the “hockey stick” graph, which reconstructs historical temperature records and has long been targeted by individuals disputing climate change, claiming it makes the problem look worse than it is.

    He compares the earliest version of the graph published in 1998 to earlier illustrations of climate change, which the video lists as “unbiased”.

    Deniston says: “You have a significant amount of natural variability in the climate. Climate change is real, we’re just not the ones causing it.”

    He is a self-described scientific researcher (here) with the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee. The organisation is the namesake of the late fringe political figure who promoted conspiracy theories (here).

    One description of the video shared on social media reads (here “Learn how the alarmist's ‘hockey stick’ depiction of rising temperatures is taken completely out of context, and used to ‘prove’ the fake science of man-made climate change.”

    It is false to say, however, that the graph is misleading or fabricates the impact of man-made climate change.

    The "hockey stick" was originally authored by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues, and it was first published in Nature in 1998 (here).

    It showed a reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures since A.D. 1400 alongside real-world data from available records.

    Mann and his collaborators updated the graph in 1999 (here) to include representations of data from the years from A.D. 1000.

    The moniker comes from the graph’s distinctive shape. It illustrates Earth’s temperature slowly declining from A.D. 1000 until the early-20th century when it increases relatively sharply.

    The “hockey stick” featured prominently in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2001 (page 134, here).

    “The trend is very clear which is why the graph became so well known,” an IPCC spokesperson told Reuters.

    The spokesperson added: “It has never been corrected in 20 years.”

    Earlier depictions of changing global temperatures, some of which Deniston features, have been altered and corrected as a result of more robust reconstruction methods.

    As a result of more ancient climate data becoming available, Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 (here).

    The new graph confirms the reliability of the original, experts told Reuters.

    “The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years,” said Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London.

    Lamboll added: “The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.”

    As Mann outlined in a peer-reviewed article accompanying the 2021 version (here), the updated, longer reconstruction further strengthens the argument that Earth’s recent warming is a historical anomaly.

    Only man-made climate change could explain the “unprecedented warming trend” in studies using climate models, he wrote, citing the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2013 (here).

    In addition to the “hockey stick,” several independent studies and climate scientists attribute the rise in global temperatures largely to man-made climate change (here).

    VERDICT
    False. The “hockey stick” graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change. It shows temperatures rapidly rising since the 20th century. Multiple studies and independent climate scientists support the findings depicted.

    This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.

And your Climategate argument seems to be a manufactured controversy.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

    Summary
    In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

    The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
    Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
    E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

    …(article continues)…
#15256356
Pants-of-dog wrote:My prediction seems to be correct.

No. You "predict" that I won't provide evidence, and then when I do, as in this case, you just claim I haven't. It's always the same.
Your ad hominem against Michael Mann and the infamous hockey graph also seems to be wrong:

No, it is not an ad hominem, and it is correct. You are simply making things up, or relying on things others have made up.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change-idUSL1N2S112H

Reuters is nothing but an anti-fossil-fuel hysteria echo chamber.
Fact Check-'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change

Like most of these purported "fact checks," the one you have referenced is full of lies.
A video viewed thousands of times online disputes the reliability of an authoritative graph showing cooling global temperatures over 1,000 years and rapid warming in the 20th century. A speaker in the clip claims the chart falsely inflates the impact of man-made climate change. However, the graph is a reliable marker of warming temperatures largely as a result of human activity, climate experts told Reuters.

They mean climate liars.
He compares the earliest version of the graph published in 1998 to earlier illustrations of climate change, which the video lists as “unbiased”.

Which they were, because they were not created by liars to advance a lie.
It is false to say, however, that the graph is misleading or fabricates the impact of man-made climate change.

No, it is not. Lyin' Michael Mann deliberately fabricated the graph out of cherry-picked proxy data that were not sensitive to temperature, and thus did not show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; then when those proxy data also did not show any modern warming in the 20th century, he dishonestly removed them from his graph and replaced them with instrumental data with no correction for urban heating effects.
The "hockey stick" was originally authored by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues, and it was first published in Nature in 1998 (here).

And was a bald lie from the outset, as proved above.
It showed a reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures since A.D. 1400 alongside real-world data from available records.

No, that is another lie from your lying "fact checkers," as proved above. The "reconstruction" was created out of "proxy" data that showed little natural variation in temperature for the pre-modern period, and because those proxy data also showed no modern warming either, Mann removed the modern proxy data from the graph and replaced them with instrumental data uncorrected for urban heating effects.
Mann and his collaborators updated the graph in 1999 (here) to include representations of data from the years from A.D. 1000.

Using the same fraudulent method of cherry-picking insensitive "proxies" for the pre-modern temperature reconstruction, but removing the modern proxy data because they show no warming.
The moniker comes from the graph’s distinctive shape. It illustrates Earth’s temperature slowly declining from A.D. 1000 until the early-20th century when it increases relatively sharply.

Which is known to be a fabrication. We have known since long before Mann's fraud that temperature declined sharply in the 14th-16th century, when solar activity declined, and rebounded in the 19th and 20th when the sun became more active again.
The “hockey stick” featured prominently in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2001 (page 134, here).

Because it supported the fraudulent IPCC agenda.
“The trend is very clear which is why the graph became so well known,” an IPCC spokesperson told Reuters.

But was lying.
The spokesperson added: “It has never been corrected in 20 years.”

That is another flat-out lie. Many papers have proved Mann was lying, and that the MWP and LIA were real, significant, and global.
Earlier depictions of changing global temperatures, some of which Deniston features, have been altered and corrected as a result of more robust reconstruction methods.

No. The earlier depictions of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are known to have been correct, but have been retroactively altered and falsified to conform to the modern agenda of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.
As a result of more ancient climate data becoming available, Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 (here).

And lied again.
The new graph confirms the reliability of the original, experts told Reuters.

No. It only confirms that Mann is able to get away with blatant scientific malfeasance as long as it serves the anti-CO2 agenda.
“The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years,” said Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London.

Which is another bald lie. The best radiosonde and satellite data confirm cooling since 2016.
Lamboll added: “The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.”

That is another bald lie. The most scientifically credible reconstructions confirm the MWP and LIA happened, directly refuting the hockey stick fraud.
As Mann outlined in a peer-reviewed article accompanying the 2021 version (here), the updated, longer reconstruction further strengthens the argument that Earth’s recent warming is a historical anomaly.

Because he is telling the same lies and using the same fraudulent methods.
Only man-made climate change could explain the “unprecedented warming trend” in studies using climate models, he wrote, citing the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2013 (here).

But that was just another bald lie from Lyin' Michael Mann, because the earth is known with absolute certainty to have warmed far faster at the onset of the Holocene, when many trillions of cubic kilometers of glacial ice melted. Nothing remotely comparable has occurred since people started using fossil fuels, and those who claim it has are just flat-out liars.
In addition to the “hockey stick,” several independent studies and climate scientists attribute the rise in global temperatures largely to man-made climate change (here).

Because they are telling the same lies.
VERDICT
False. The “hockey stick” graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change.

Already proved a lie. It is a complete fraud.
It shows temperatures rapidly rising since the 20th century.

There is no doubt that the multimillennium high in solar activity in the 20th century caused substantial warming. But CO2 from fossil fuels did not cause the sun to become so active.
Multiple studies and independent climate scientists support the findings depicted.

No. The hockey stick graph's depiction of climate history without any MWP or LIA is known to be fraudulent.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.

The article was produced by a team of professional liars for hire.
And your Climategate argument seems to be a manufactured controversy.

No, you will merely quote an absurd and dishonest whitewash:
Summary
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming.

No, that is just another bald lie. There has never been any claim that the climategate emails show there is no human component in global warming. It is a bald lie to claim that climate realists have made such claims. Your source is just baldly lying. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
We find that to be unfounded:

Because they lied about what climate realists say the climategate emails show.
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive.

And more importanly, dishonest.
An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

No, that is another bald lie from your source. There is plenty of evidence that the earth WAS getting warmer until ~2016, but no credible empirical evidence whatever that humans are largely responsible, given the multimillennium high in solar activity that occurred at the same time.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

Fraud taints all associated sources.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.

But is still talking about scientific fraud.
These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded.

Because there are no instrument records from the far warmer climates that often prevailed before the LIA, even in the Holocene, and the multimillennium high solar activity through the 20th century has warmed the earth since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- when, not coincidentally, the instrument record began. It takes a particular kind of dishonesty to claim that a temperature record that only begins in February and continues to warm into July is evidence that December will be roasting hot, when it is known that all previous Decembers were cooler than July even in the absence of any actual temperature records from such times.
The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

Right: the tree-ring data Lyin' Michael Mann REMOVED from his hockey stick graph because it showed no modern warming, and replaced with contaminated (if not falsified) instrumental data that showed spurious warming caused by urban heat island effects.
#15256359
Truth To Power wrote:No. You "predict" that I won't provide evidence, and then when I do, as in this case, you just claim I haven't. It's always the same.

No, it is not an ad hominem, and it is correct. You are simply making things up, or relying on things others have made up.

Reuters is nothing but an anti-fossil-fuel hysteria echo chamber.

Like most of these purported "fact checks," the one you have referenced is full of lies.

They mean climate liars.

Which they were, because they were not created by liars to advance a lie.

No, it is not. Lyin' Michael Mann deliberately fabricated the graph out of cherry-picked proxy data that were not sensitive to temperature, and thus did not show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; then when those proxy data also did not show any modern warming in the 20th century, he dishonestly removed them from his graph and replaced them with instrumental data with no correction for urban heating effects.

And was a bald lie from the outset, as proved above.

No, that is another lie from your lying "fact checkers," as proved above. The "reconstruction" was created out of "proxy" data that showed little natural variation in temperature for the pre-modern period, and because those proxy data also showed no modern warming either, Mann removed the modern proxy data from the graph and replaced them with instrumental data uncorrected for urban heating effects.

Using the same fraudulent method of cherry-picking insensitive "proxies" for the pre-modern temperature reconstruction, but removing the modern proxy data because they show no warming.

Which is known to be a fabrication. We have known since long before Mann's fraud that temperature declined sharply in the 14th-16th century, when solar activity declined, and rebounded in the 19th and 20th when the sun became more active again.

Because it supported the fraudulent IPCC agenda.

But was lying.

That is another flat-out lie. Many papers have proved Mann was lying, and that the MWP and LIA were real, significant, and global.

No. The earlier depictions of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are known to have been correct, but have been retroactively altered and falsified to conform to the modern agenda of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

And lied again.

No. It only confirms that Mann is able to get away with blatant scientific malfeasance as long as it serves the anti-CO2 agenda.

Which is another bald lie. The best radiosonde and satellite data confirm cooling since 2016.

That is another bald lie. The most scientifically credible reconstructions confirm the MWP and LIA happened, directly refuting the hockey stick fraud.

Because he is telling the same lies and using the same fraudulent methods.

But that was just another bald lie from Lyin' Michael Mann, because the earth is known with absolute certainty to have warmed far faster at the onset of the Holocene, when many trillions of cubic kilometers of glacial ice melted. Nothing remotely comparable has occurred since people started using fossil fuels, and those who claim it has are just flat-out liars.

Because they are telling the same lies.

Already proved a lie. It is a complete fraud.

There is no doubt that the multimillennium high in solar activity in the 20th century caused substantial warming. But CO2 from fossil fuels did not cause the sun to become so active.

No. The hockey stick graph's depiction of climate history without any MWP or LIA is known to be fraudulent.

The article was produced by a team of professional liars for hire.

No, you will merely quote an absurd and dishonest whitewash:

No, that is just another bald lie. There has never been any claim that the climategate emails show there is no human component in global warming. It is a bald lie to claim that climate realists have made such claims. Your source is just baldly lying. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

Because they lied about what climate realists say the climategate emails show.

And more importanly, dishonest.

No, that is another bald lie from your source. There is plenty of evidence that the earth WAS getting warmer until ~2016, but no credible empirical evidence whatever that humans are largely responsible, given the multimillennium high in solar activity that occurred at the same time.

Fraud taints all associated sources.

But is still talking about scientific fraud.

Because there are no instrument records from the far warmer climates that often prevailed before the LIA, even in the Holocene, and the multimillennium high solar activity through the 20th century has warmed the earth since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- when, not coincidentally, the instrument record began. It takes a particular kind of dishonesty to claim that a temperature record that only begins in February and continues to warm into July is evidence that December will be roasting hot, when it is known that all previous Decembers were cooler than July even in the absence of any actual temperature records from such times.

Right: the tree-ring data Lyin' Michael Mann REMOVED from his hockey stick graph because it showed no modern warming, and replaced with contaminated (if not falsified) instrumental data that showed spurious warming caused by urban heat island effects.


I stopped reading after the fourth time you called people liars.

Since you have no argument except calling people names, this discussion seems pointless.

And you also provide no evidence. Again.

Also, you seem to misunderstand how tree ring data was used my Mann et al.
#15256730
Pants-of-dog wrote:I stopped reading after the fourth time you called people liars.

So you prefer to believe liars when they agree with you, and refuse to consider evidence that someone who agrees with you could be a liar. Thought so.
Since you have no argument except calling people names, this discussion seems pointless.

That is just another bald falsehood from you. Identifying lies as such is not name calling, and I have identified the relevant facts that support my views.
And you also provide no evidence. Again.

That is just a bald falsehood. Again.
Also, you seem to misunderstand how tree ring data was used my Mann et al.

No, I understand how they have misused it far better than you.
#15256796
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power has provided another post where he calls people liars

Didn't happen. You made it up. Which is why you did not quote me calling anyone a liar. It's always the same: you make false claims about what I have plainly written, and do not provide any direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support those claims.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

I saw an interesting article a couple of days ago […]

https://files.techhub.social/cache/m[…]

The ethical question is not who wins, but who sh[…]

@Rich Depends on sources which age she had acco[…]