• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Hey, I just blew the lid of the whole Dow conspiracy. Look at this account of the "mathematical trick" the Dow uses to respond to stock splits! At last, we have it in black and white, a "mathematical trick"!!!! Clearly the Dow has been effectively zero for decades!

Hey, witchdoctor economists! We're on to you! Stop trying to HIDE THE DECLINE with your "mathematical tricks"!!

ZERO DOW
ZERO DOW
ZERO DOW!!!!

What, mhaze? Doesn't the use of the word "trick" definitively prove that the technique is illegitimate and founded on bogus science?
 
Yoink said:
E....What makes you a "denier," mhaze, is that you cling obsessively to the flaws and deliberately ignore the overall picture.
.....It's your absurd attempt to infer from that that the entire field is bogus that shows you to be a "denier," mhaze. You're clearly not remotely interested in the overall validity of the IPCC report. All you want to know is can you find a few errors in it. If you do, that's your excuse to jettison the entire thing. ....
Click to expand...
Thanks.

You've now shown yourself to be a true Warmer, resorting to ad hominem, misdirection, goal post shifting, Saul Alinsky 5,6, and 11 tactics.

More interestingly, you can't even stay out of the psychobabble long enough to come up with a definition of "DENIER" which does anything more than show your insult of the moment.

The post you responded to was in part:


So you are saying then, that one who objects to the making up of numbers and facts, as with the African rain, the Himilayan glaciers, the Netherland sea level rise, and so forth, is "A DENIER"?

Here your "broad brush" won't work. Let's hear what you've got to say on the specific cases cites, as to the application of the phrase DENIER in those cases. Your attempt to move the goalposts from these specifics to some overall opinion about the IPCC won't fly.

It would appear now that you are asserting that someone who objects to the making up of numbers and facts, as with these cited cases, is not a Denier. Well, which is it? Is such a person a Denier? If he is, I know a lot of people who will take that label on.

Oh, and by the way...there's no relation between your use of the word "proxy" as you would use it for the DOW, and the way it is used for proxies of temperature.
 
Last edited:
Yoink said:
Alinsky? ROFL
Click to expand...

MHaze is the only person on the planet who even knows who Alinsky is, much less what he wrote. Its a form of ad hominem similar to the one that alleges that all Jewish people take their instructions from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or that any gay person acts according to The Gay Agenda whatever the hell that is.
 
If you're talking about Saul Alinsky, then a hell of a lot of people know who he is. What he has to do with anything in this discussion besides MHaze's rantings is a tad beyond me, since he's been dead since the 70s.
 
GreyICE said:
'Digging it in deeper.' Meanwhile, temperatures keep rising, two data sets utterly independent of this agree with it, and the deniers aren't taken seriously by anyone in any position of power short of a few crackpots in the House (the same renown body that includes Ron Paul).
Click to expand...

So, is this an argument about 'popularity' now. I thought that didn't count, now it does?

GreyICE said:
On the Netherlands thing, it's entirely accurate to say that half of the Netherlands' population is below sea level. It's only like 30% of the land, but that 30% has about 60% of the population.
Click to expand...

That's obviously what they meant to say then isn't it? After all, they are very careful with their words, being experts and all.:boggled:
Please show ehere it says anything like that. Is it in reference to land mass or population?
 
mhaze said:
Well, all I can say to that is that your definition of "splice" and "dissimilar" data sets is a broad enough brush to make your point, and my definitions are more restrictive and precise. For example, "dissimilar" would be proxy by tree rings vv. instrumental temperature measurements (just one example).

But meanwhile, we have ever more self-takedowns from the IPCC:

  • A prediction about the impact of sea level increases on people living in the Nile Delta was taken from an unpublished student dissertation.
  • The Dutch government has demanded that the IPCC correct its erroneous assertion that half of the Netherlands is below sea level.
  • the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.
Now, Yoink, what is and was a Denier? Was it someone who was skeptical of IPCC sea level increasees? Of impacts of climate change on the Nile Delta? Of the effect of climate change on African food production?

We know the answers.
Click to expand...

I've been luring in this forum for awhile and was firmly in the AGW (I think that's the human caused global warming) camp, but I have to admit I'm being pushed more towards the fence. The IPCC has been caught overdramatizing some effects of global warming with little or no science to back it up. If this is what they've been caught doing, how do we trust the other claims they make? Is is possible there's more exagerration going on to "scare" the public into going along with GHG reductions?
 
Malerin said:
I've been luring in this forum for awhile and was firmly in the AGW (I think that's the human caused global warming) camp, but I have to admit I'm being pushed more towards the fence. The IPCC has been caught overdramatizing some effects of global warming with little or no science to back it up. If this is what they've been caught doing, how do we trust the other claims they make? Is is possible there's more exagerration going on to "scare" the public into going along with GHG reductions?
Click to expand...

I have to let you in on a little secret: the IPCC doesn't actually do any research. It's a secret in that everyone in the real world knows this, except for the deniers, who think the IPCC is a front for the NWO :rolleyes:

So when you question all of the research on the basis that a UN advisory committee might get a tad overblown and hysterical, I have to ask 'what?' Have you really been following this at all?

At best this makes you not trust the IPCC. That's fine. Don't trust the IPCC. There's plenty of organizations doing research out there.
 
GreyICE said:
I have to let you in on a little secret: the IPCC doesn't actually do any research. It's a secret in that everyone in the real world knows this, except for the deniers, who think the IPCC is a front for the NWO :rolleyes:

So when you question all of the research on the basis that a UN advisory committee might get a tad overblown and hysterical, I have to ask 'what?' Have you really been following this at all?

At best this makes you not trust the IPCC. That's fine. Don't trust the IPCC. There's plenty of organizations doing research out there.
Click to expand...

Who in the IPCC puts together their reports?
Seriously, I want to know. You seem to allege that the two bodies are not intermingled in any way shape or form, frankly it doesn't seem that way to me nor Malerin (whilst not wishing to speak for him).

So, what 'experts' put together the IPCC reports? Are they climate scientists? Politicians? Diplomats? Other sorts of scientists? Who does the work and who decided/s what gets in and what doesn't?
 
Malerin said:
I've been luring in this forum for awhile and was firmly in the AGW (I think that's the human caused global warming) camp, but I have to admit I'm being pushed more towards the fence. The IPCC has been caught overdramatizing some effects of global warming with little or no science to back it up. If this is what they've been caught doing, how do we trust the other claims they make? Is is possible there's more exagerration going on to "scare" the public into going along with GHG reductions?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the "they have been caught over-dramatizing some claims and so how can we trust their other claims" logic also applies to the AGW denier camp. So that does not help on making decisions about AGW.

My opinion is that there will be more problems found with the IPCC report. You are talking about a 1500 page document prepared by committees and organized by the UN. The surprise is not that there are errors but in such a complex undertaking that there only a handful of errors detected so far.

The reported errors have not been about the existence of AGW but rather about the projected, exaggerated and badly sourced effects of global warming on Himalayan glaciers, rain forests and African agriculture.
 
GreyICE said:
I have to let you in on a little secret: the IPCC doesn't actually do any research. It's a secret in that everyone in the real world knows this, except for the deniers, who think the IPCC is a front for the NWO :rolleyes:

So when you question all of the research on the basis that a UN advisory committee might get a tad overblown and hysterical, I have to ask 'what?' Have you really been following this at all?

At best this makes you not trust the IPCC. That's fine. Don't trust the IPCC. There's plenty of organizations doing research out there.
Click to expand...

I know there are other organizations. NASA's research clearly shows a global warming trend.

Are you claiming global warming proponents have not used claims found in IPCC reports? The IPCC is not a hugely influential body? 2000 members of the IPCC didn't share a Nobel Prize with Al Gore? This all seems a tad convenient coming on the heels of the recent scandals.

According to this, the report generating process of the IPCC is extremely rigourous:

"The preparation of all IPCC reports and publications follows strict procedures agreed by the Panel. The work is guided by the IPCC Chair and the Working Group and Task Force Co-chairs. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports as authors, contributors and reviewers. The composition of author teams reflect a range of views, expertise and geographical representation. Review by governments and experts is an essential element of the preparation of IPCC reports."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

So I'm a little taken aback that some admittedly slipshod research found its way past "hundreds of experts" and "author teams". I guess it's OK if they get things wrong because they're really an insignificant group in the scheme of things.
 
Reality Check said:
Unfortunately the "they have been caught over-dramatizing some claims and so how can we trust their other claims" logic also applies to the AGW denier camp. So that does not help on making decisions about AGW.

My opinion is that there will be more problems found with the IPCC report. You are talking about a 1500 page document prepared by committees and organized by the UN. The surprise is not that there are errors but in such a complex undertaking that there only a handful of errors detected so far.

The reported errors have not been about the existence of AGW but rather about the projected, exaggerated and badly sourced effects of global warming on Himalayan glaciers, rain forests and African agriculture.
Click to expand...

Was any caveat of this sort given before the bogus claims were found?
 
Malerin said:
I've been luring in this forum for awhile and was firmly in the AGW (I think that's the human caused global warming) camp, but I have to admit I'm being pushed more towards the fence. The IPCC has been caught overdramatizing some effects of global warming with little or no science to back it up. If this is what they've been caught doing, how do we trust the other claims they make? Is is possible there's more exagerration going on to "scare" the public into going along with GHG reductions?
Click to expand...

Could you imagine a huge survey of the current state of research on any field at all that wouldn't yield similar errors at the margins? If you looked through any report produced by hundreds of scientist and bureaucrats trying to get a handle on any issue in the entire history of the world and put every single claim in every single footnote of every single study cited in the report under a microscope, do you really think it would be possible to avoid a single error?

What amazes me in this string of "shocking" revelations is how pathetic they are. The IPCC report must be astoundingly solid if these are the most damning errors that the denialists can find in it after spending so much desperate effort trying to discredit the report.

Look how many hours of blogging-time have been spent on a pathetically minor error about what percentage of the Netherlands is currently below sea-level, for example. It's not even a claim that forms any part of the science of global warming. It's a datum relating to how vulnerable the Netherlands would be to a sea-level rise. And so? Let's pretend that we can push a button and make the Netherlands be entirely above sea-level. Would that mean we shouldn't worry about sea level rise? Let's push another button and have it all be below sea-level; does that suddenly prove the case for AGW? No...it's a minor error that is utterly irrelevant to the IPCC's central case. The fact that so many denialists have rabbited on about it for so long is the best possible proof you could have that the IPCC report is fundamentally sound.

Oh and let's push that button one last time, and restore the poor old Netherlands to its actual state. It's not a half of the Netherlands that lies below sea-level, it's one-quarter. There's another quarter that is at high risk of flooding, but doesn't lie below current mean sea-level. And 60% of the population of the Netherlands lives on the below-sea-level portion of the country.

O.K. that's the actual status quo in the Netherlands. Does that mean that it now seems like a big non-event to let the world's sea levels rise? Should we no longer consider sea-level rise a threat to the Netherlands (and other low-lying countries)? "Oh, I though we were risking wiping out 50% of the country, but it turns out it's only 25% and only 60% of the population lives in that 25%! It's obviously completely unimportant!!"

An utterly trivial and insignificant error: and yet somehow every AGW denialist masturbates furiously at the mere thought of it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom