Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Poptech said:
The second paper...
Click to expand...

It's not a paper, it's a blog post...

Wait I thought it was Peer-reviewed? Oooooops! Looks like Science's peer review process is a JOKE. ROFLMAO!!!!
Click to expand...

Well, I could try to explain to you what peer-review means, but it's wasted time.

Ben libel is what you say about me, sarcasm is what I stated. I understand you do not comprehend the difference.
Click to expand...

No, what you said was a lie about your theft of intellectual property. You are a liar and a thief.
 
Poptech said:
Wikipedia... Irony indeed!


Thanks for contradicting your self and invaliding the rest of your post.

The second paper exposes his data padding technique. Like I said EPIC Fail! You have no idea how much I keep laughing watching you guys flop around as one of the alarmists most treasured pile of crap papers goes down in flames!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait I thought it was Peer-reviewed? Oooooops! Looks like Science's peer review process is a JOKE. ROFLMAO!!!!

Ben libel is what you say about me, sarcasm is what I stated. I understand you do not comprehend the difference.
Click to expand...

Poptech are you here to:

1. Convince anyone.

or

2. Attempt mockery.
 
Megalodon said:
It's not a paper, it's a blog post...
Click to expand...
Paper #1 = Rahmstorf 2007, Paper #2 = Stockwell 2009.

Megalodon said:
Well, I could try to explain to you what peer-review means, but it's wasted time.
Click to expand...
Oh I know what it means.

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (Nature, Peer-to-Peer)

Megalodon said:
No, what you said was a lie about your theft of intellectual property. You are a liar and a thief.
Click to expand...
Go look up sarcasm in the dictionary.

UnrepentantSinner said:
Which disputes...
Click to expand...
It disputes the accuracy of any of the information posted. Don't worry people are being made aware of the political connections of RealClimate.org. I realize how massively embarrassing this is for the alarmists as that is were they get all their material. Oh and Rahmstorf is an editor there. Yes the one who just got exposed here as a data-padder.

Twiler said:
Poptech are you here to:

1. Convince anyone.
Click to expand...
Of course but the true believers can never be convinced.

Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Which disputes the fact that Discover the Networks and Activistcash have political/economic agendas themselves how exactly?
Poptech said:
It disputes the accuracy of any of the information posted. Don't worry people are being made aware of the political connections of RealClimate.org.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Please address what I actually wrote rather than your Rohrsachesque interpretation of it.
 
Poptech said:
Wait did I provide scientific evidence that does not support the alarmist belief? Of course you must question it and never question the alarmist position.
Click to expand...

This is also just a specious argument in the extreme. I for one did approach it with a rather high level of scepticism. Yes the Norway geology shows that there was open water at times in the artic, however the source of the dating is not really given, nor is the time period needed to form such a beach. There are some rather large temperature cycles in the period after the ice age.

Now what is your point?

How does this refute the position of AGW?

That is where you fail to appreciate the Jref , you don't follow up with the actual arguement, you throw out factoids and fail to follow through.

There are many sources that possibly indicate that global temperatures are rising. Let us discuss the Norway study.

What do you think it shows? How does the researcher reach the conclusion on the extent of artic melting. What level of ice cover does it suggest? For how long a period?
 
Poptech said:
Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.
Click to expand...
Didn't I correct this idiotic notion in the thread where you whine about getting banned? I just like arguing with idiots. It makes me feel smart.
 
Poptech said:
I know this, you are not following the discussion and don't get it. I was talking about curve fitting in reference to "calibrating" models. I am not talking about data smoothing. This was a separate discussion Megalondon and I were having of which you jumped in not understanding the context.
Click to expand...


Lighten up dude, this is the JREF, you will have to defnd most of what you say most of the time.

Try to demonstrate the evidence that they did what you say they did and that the critiques of your statements are invalid.

This is the JREF, you will be challenged on everything you say. Address the points and defend your statements.
 
Poptech said:
In relation to model calibration, I consider it an advanced exercise in curve fitting but since this is simply causing confusion due to the discussion of data smoothing, it is easier to call it "model tuning" - which is a Joke.
Click to expand...

Um, there are a number of points that RC made that you have failed to address, this short hand form of argumentation makes you look weak. This is the JREF, you will be expected to make protracted and detailed responses to different critiques on sperate points.

You still have yet to do more than assert your conclusions.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Please address what I actually wrote rather than your Rohrsachesque interpretation of it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anything on Wikipedia because again I know better. It helps if you understand your sources.

Dancing David said:
I for one did approach it with a rather high level of scepticism. Yes the Norway geology shows that there was open water at times in the artic, however the source of the dating is not really given, nor is the time period needed to form such a beach. There are some rather large temperature cycles in the period after the ice age.

Now what is your point?
Click to expand...
There is scientific evidence that the Arctic has had less sea-ice in the recent past. Since we only have satellite records since the late 1970s (a known cold period) we lack the observational evidence to use to conclude the causation of the recent sea ice extent. However I did provide another study showing that changes in wind patterns can be to blame for it. BTW I started a thread about the Norway study.

Dancing David said:
How does this refute the position of AGW?
Click to expand...
Who said it did? That was in response for the evidence of less ice in the Arctic. Nothing but computer models supports AGW.

What you should be asking is why all the offtopic interjections are being done on a thread about a single paper, Rahmstorf 2007.
 
He can't. He's a liar and a thief... the fact that he's dumb as bricks doesn't help, also...
 
I don't call you a liar because of your "sarcasm"... That's why I call you a thief. You've lied enough times before to earn the epithet...
 
Poptech said:
I don't believe anything on Wikipedia because again I know better. It helps if you understand your sources.


There is scientific evidence that the Arctic has had less sea-ice in the recent past. Since we only have satellite records since the late 1970s (a known cold period) we lack the observational evidence to use to conclude the causation of the recent sea ice extent. However I did provide another study showing that changes in wind patterns can be to blame for it. BTW I started a thread about the Norway study.
Click to expand...
Duh, and you did not stay around to discuss this, nope you went around starting a lot of new threads and did not come back to the Norway thread.

Why was that?

At the JREF, there will be protracted discussion. You do not learnt critical skills through volume of new threads.
Who said it did? That was in response for the evidence of less ice in the Arctic. Nothing but computer models supports AGW.
Click to expand...
See I disagree, I began to change my thinking when I looked at the lake sediment data research, many places over many extended periods show a rather stable situation that appears to be changing. then there are other sources as well.

It could be solar in nature, which could be good and bad but it also appears to coincide with the increase in CO2.
What you should be asking is why all the offtopic interjections are being done on a thread about a single paper, Rahmstorf 2007.
Click to expand...

You brought it up, you were the one who was off topic.

And yes there are times there has been less sea ice. But again just throwing out factoid does not an argument make.
 
Poptech said:
Look up sarcasm. Mega does not know how to use a dictionary. (hint: they provide them for free online)
Click to expand...

So, someone asks you to show the chain of evidence that the chart you posted in related to what you say it is. And this is your response?

...mutter...just like the Bigfoot people...mutter...won't answer a direct request...mutter...changes the topic...mutter... ;)

Show that the chart you posted comes from where you haven't said it comes from?

Demonstrate that you took the chart from Rahmstorff?

is that clear enough?
 
Poptech said:
You continue to prove how embarrassing this is for you as you used to hold up the data-padder as evidence of your alarmism. Now you will need a new false idol.
Click to expand...

The fact that you are incapable to understand that the E&E "paper" actually confirms Rahmstorf et al. is your problem, not ours... Many of us explained it to you, time and time again.
 
Poptech said:
Paper #1 = Rahmstorf 2007, Paper #2 = Stockwell 2009.
Click to expand...
try to show that is true, are you saying you actually took the chart from Stockwell?

Or what are you saying here?
...


Of course but the true believers can never be convinced.

Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)

Environmentalism Is the New Religion (Video) (5min) (Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences)

Even when one of their cherished papers is exposed as nothing but an exercise in data-padding they remain non-skeptical. Because AGW skepticism is "denial" and they do not want to be ridiculed by other true believers.
Click to expand...


And here you are going way off topic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom