Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[DKW 86 7,423]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:

Care to argue the science with me, or are you planning on lecturing me on the "scare machine."

You can't take the worst case scenario and apply it to the entirety of the models. Doing so is deceptive, and Dr. Spencer should know better.

This afternoon Dr Spencer forgot more about AGW than this whole board will ever know...

[AUDub 11,148]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:/> :lmao:/> :lmao:/>

Care to argue the science with me, or are you planning on lecturing me on the "scare machine."

You can't take the worst case scenario and apply it to the entirety of the models. Doing so is deceptive, and Dr. Spencer should know better.

This afternoon Dr Spencer forgot more about AGW than this whole board will ever know...

Sure he did.

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this :bs:/> They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age :bs:/>

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

The character attacks are getting old, DKW. Either debate the issue with me or go away.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Can you provide examples of these two claims?

[DKW 86 7,423]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/skeptical-sciences-john-cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

[DKW 86 7,423]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Can you provide examples of these two claims?

I have provided example after example on thread after thread.

Google is your friend. It is not like you are going to look at the truth and change one idea in your head.

[autigeremt 6,623]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

[DKW 86 7,423]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

Watch it. That doesnt agree with the Mindless PCers here. They may gang up on you as soon as the quilting gets done...

[AUDub 11,148]

I think I broke DKW, guys. ;D/>

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this :bs:/> They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age :bs:/>

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Can you provide examples of these two claims?

I have provided example after example on thread after thread.

Google is your friend. It is not like you are going to look at the truth and change one idea in your head.

I've refuted the global cooling claim many times. Shall I do so again?

As for sks, provide your examples. You make a claim, be ready to back it up.

[AUDub 11,148]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...:lmao:/>

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/skeptical-sciences-john-cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

How about refuting this?

[homersapien 11,373]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

For someone who consistently gets their facts wrong, you sure are liberal with the "BS icon".

http://en.wikipedia..../Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.^[1]

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwithth...cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

I asked you a serious question. I attempted to engage you in a serious discussion. YOU ARE the very type of person you attempt to demonize. What has happened to you? There is a noticeable and disturbing change in your behavior.

[AUDub 11,148]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

Maybe we'll get lucky and this will be the real deal.

[homersapien 11,373]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:

Care to argue the science with me, or are you planning on lecturing me on the "scare machine."

You can't take the worst case scenario and apply it to the entirety of the models. Doing so is deceptive, and Dr. Spencer should know better.

This afternoon Dr Spencer forgot more about AGW than this whole board will ever know...

Now there's a sharply focused counter-point. :-\

Independent of what he may actually know about the subject, Spencer has deliberately presented distorted data.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Can you provide examples of these two claims?

I have provided example after example on thread after thread.

Google is your friend. It is not like you are going to look at the truth and change one idea in your head.

"The same people"? Can you name them? If you can, great. If you can not, just say so. Why have you become so hostile?

[AUDub 11,148]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!!!!

And you are going to tell everyone that the worst scenarios werent part and parcel of the AGW Scare Machine FOR DECADES? :lmao:

Care to argue the science with me, or are you planning on lecturing me on the "scare machine."

You can't take the worst case scenario and apply it to the entirety of the models. Doing so is deceptive, and Dr. Spencer should know better.

This afternoon Dr Spencer forgot more about AGW than this whole board will ever know...

I don't care how much he knows. He's being very deceptive and he should know better.

[homersapien 11,373]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

[homersapien 11,373]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Is the "AGW crowd" similar to Obama's Secret Negro Army?

God, I hope they don't link up with the "PC crowd".

[homersapien 11,373]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwithth...cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

Seriously? :-\

So SkS used “reposition fact as theory” instead of "reposition global warming as theory (rather than fact)”

That's the best you can do to discredit SkS?

[DKW 86 7,423]

I think I broke DKW, guys.

You idots are just hilarious. I mean you cant take for one second that the AGW Crowd doesnt act to support this They laugh at idiots like you folks that are ready to support ANY and I mean ANY thing they say, no matter how freakin ridiculous. These are the same people that were destroying people in the 1970s & 80s with the Looming Ice Age

Same folks...It was crazy then and its an awful lot of crazy now.

Not one of you, not one, has even 1% of the credentials that Spencer does. He has been a part of this debate for decades. SkS has gone and literally altered posts and quotes and you guys are 100% okay with that.

Is the "AGW crowd" similar to Obama's Secret Negro Army?

God, I hope they don't link up with the "PC crowd".

(Really not wanting to ask this) WTH is a SNA?

[DKW 86 7,423]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwithth...cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

Seriously? :-\

So SkS used “reposition fact as theory” instead of "reposition global warming as theory (rather than fact)”

That's the best you can do to discredit SkS?

http://notrickszone....h.ZX3O2Rdq.dpbs

John Cook is a Fraud

https://stevengoddar...ook-is-a-fraud/

John Cook Is A Fraud

https://stevengoddar...k-is-a-fraud-2/

Cook was banking on Obama’s ignorance of statistics. Either that or Obama’s eagerness to have some fraudulent statistics generated for him.

As Joseph points out, the 98 percent came from 79 respondents of the 10,257 surveys that were sent out. That is hardly a number I would rely on.

http://www.omsj.org/...consensus-claim

But as more independent analysts look into Cook’s claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook’s study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

http://wattsupwithth...l-warming-meme/

John Cook’s Skeptical Science effort to the advocacy disguised as science going on at the University of Western Australia with Stephan Lewandowsky. Since this was sent using the University of Queenslands public network resource, it is fair game for posting, especially since no caveats for disclosure of the survey are given in the invitation letter.

I found the methodology of the sample selection quite ridiculous:

Our search of the ISI Web of Science database has found X of your papers published between 1991 and 2011 matching the search phrases ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ (noting that due to the specific search parameters, it’s possible that some of your papers may not be included).

It’s not essential that you are an expert in attribution of global warming

...in Cook’s world, they simply don’t care if you are an expert or not if you have an opinion on global warming/climate change. Such hypocrisy. I suppose we can call this the “cartoonist clause” since Mr. Cook is a cartoonist by trade.

http://www.thenewame...consensus-fraud

Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

http://daviddfriedma...VVk72WlqW7kbrWs

his 97% figure ignored the roughly two-thirds of papers that took no position on AGW.

http://www.forbes.co...nsensus-claims/

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Here Forbes shows you that John Cook of SkS actually quoted the work of known skeptics as writing in support of the Fraudulent 97% claim.

http://joannenova.co...you-discuss-it/

Cook’s work is obviously impeccable (except for the part about 97% being really 0.3%), but evidently it uses a special new kind of “open data”. The exact date and time each anonymized reviewer reviewed a sacred scientific abstract is commercial and must be kept secret. These volunteer reviewers allegedly stand to, er … lose a lot of money if that data is revealed (they won’t be employed again for no money?). Such is the importance of this that the University of Queensland left the data on secret-secret forum protected by no passwords and then put urls to it on secret forums that were publicly accessible. Brandon Shollenberger had the genius idea of changing the numbers in the url +1, +1, and +1, and voila! For the crime of finding unhidden non-secret data Brandon received a threatening legal letter, and expects the Feds to arrive any minute. You can’t just type any old numbers into a url.

If you read this site, dont drink. It is too funny being sued by the UQ and then having them disavow any knowledge of SkS work even though it is unprotected on a UQ Server. You cant make this crap up.

No indication was given the project was tied in any way to the University of Queensland. The data was stored on a third-party website. If the University of Queensland owns this data, there’s nothing to indicate it.

Naturally, if the data doesn’t belong to the University of Queensland, it cannot have the supposed contractual obligations regarding it. Let’s assume, however, it does own the data. Let’s also assume the University of Queensland had the obligations it claims to have had. If those things are true, why was the data stored on a publicly accessible, third-party website? Wouldn’t that failure to protect the data amount to a violation of the supposed contractual obligations?

Finally Brandon asks about the study data he holds related to a paper on key-words used in scientific abstracts and published as “creative commons”:

“

Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public.

“

[AUDub 11,148]

(Really not wanting to ask this) WTH is a SNA?

[AUcivE09 582]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

[autigeremt 6,623]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

You obviously have selective reading habits, mayor of starsville. If you can't see the trees for the forest then you can't be helped. I wasn't defending the engineer as much as I was defending against this practice of defamation you and your ilk continue to spew.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

You obviously have selective reading habits, mayor of starsville. If you can't see the trees for the forest then you can't be helped. I wasn't defending the engineer as much as I was defending against this practice of defamation you and your ilk continue to spew.

Easy now. You are beginning to venture into DKW land. That is not good! You do see the irony in your message, don't you?