Tell me how wrote: » I know you edit comments up to 6 hours after they have been posted. It is hard to know when you are finally finished. I had caught it though.
gozunda wrote: » It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever'. I do think you may just be projecting yourself there Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment. Had a issue posting when my laptop ran out of power. But no worries
Also, I see your usual added edit and it is irrelevant. The point ... is how some people are hardwired to complain irrespective of the lack of validity in their reasoning.
gozunda wrote: » It's a shrug and denotes 'whatever' I do think you may ust be projecting yourself there Btw you seem to have missed the main part of my comment.
Tell me how wrote: » You should add that little confused guy graphic to your profile. It's quite apt.
gozunda wrote: » Frankly - No. I'd suggest perhaps you are a fantasist? And dont know the meaning of "Luddite' ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell me how wrote: » Swing and a miss for both of you. The analogy implied that at that time, on the first of December 1955 and the days immediately afterwards, Rosa would not have been spoken highly of in many of the bars and houses around Montgomery. She was not the first person to refuse to move from their seat to accommodate a white person, but, given her prominence with the NAACP they initiated a strike of the bus system which ultimately lead to a change in the practice of segregation. Now, people, black and white look at Rosa as a trailblazer.See the similarities with Greta's story at least to the point of Not being the first person to do it. initiating wide scale protests, became a figurehead for the cause. So be clear, I'm not suggesting you are a racist for questioning Greta, I'm suggesting you are a Luddite in coming to terms with the reality of what is happening.
gozunda wrote: » I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » They are trying to insinuate that anyone who questions the motives behind Greta and co is also a racist. Much like the start of this thread when it was insinuated that those who questions Greta must be paedophiles. Smear tactics.
1) How many layers are there to the rotten onion that is the Trudeau Foundation? You're going to want to buckle up for this one! 2) It appears as though Greta Thunberg and Justin Trudeau are more closely linked than we know, but it's very likely that Greta has absolutely no idea. Let's take a look at some interesting connections. <snip> 16) The head of events and media relations for the Thunberg family is a guy named Daniel Donner. There are many articles online that state this, but this one from Everyone Group details how he presented Greta with the 2019 Makwan Prize. 17) Daniel Donner also just happens to work with media strategy and outreach as part of the European Climate Foundation’s Strategic Communications team, focusing on both news media and digital platforms. 18) It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that the ECF’s founder, John H. McCall MacBain, is the Chair of the Board of Directors for the Trudeau Foundation. 19) McCall MacBain gave the Trudeau Foundation $928,000 between 2015-2016. This National Post article highlights many of the corporate kingpins involved in the Trudeau Foundation. The connections between these companies and the Foundation are staggering!source
KyussB wrote: » Richard Muller the director of a Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tank? Yea I'll pass on that discreditable source, thanks...Why the fuck is everyone you guys cite linked to Koch think tanks? If your views aren't so discreditable - go find people citing those views, who aren't associated with such discreditable think-tanks...
Richard A. Muller (born January 6, 1944) is an American physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
gozunda wrote: » The findings regarding flaws in the methodology of Manns work remain along with the emails from East Anglia University and the latest refusal by Mann to allow his data to be verified as an indication of issues of alarmist data which has crept into the issue of climate change. So what you are saying is thst Richard Muller (who btw) is a fully qualified and bonafide scientist is contrary to his own declaration a 'denier' and 'skeptic'. Or are you saying that as an keyboard warrior you are somehow more qualified to decide what is science and what is not? Really? I dont think so. You see thats the thing about science - it's not the cult of personality that you would like it to be. In this instance one scientist has reviewed other scientists work and found there is a case to answer. The recent court case involving Manns now debunked Hockey Stick data further backs up these issues with regards to Manns research and its use by the IPCC. That some of the climate screamers and real deniers dont like that is completely irrelevant.
KyussB wrote: » Their criticisms were dealt with and debunked by climate scientists more than a decade ago...If someone is funded by known propagandists - i.e. has massive conflicts of interest - does that affect their credibility, in your eyes?
KyussB wrote: » So lets make this clear: . . .
gozunda wrote: » Oh ffs - You are obsessed. Is everyone with whom you dont agee with a KOCH OIL OLIGARCH! The lack of basic comprehension in your comments regarding how scientific research works is quite astounding. Just to let you know that not every scientist needs to be 'climate scientist' btw. These scientists are qualified to review the methodology used by Mann and it was they who found his methodology deeply flawed. The writer of the article is yet another scientist who is neither a climate denier or a skeptic. He simply cautions others to learn from those mistakes (whether deliberate or otherwise). Here is the quote again- in case you are in doubt. It's a shame that by repetition - you identify the real denier and skeptic of those very basic facts. Truely Bizarre.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You have sunk to name calling and repeating public relations agency derived nonsense. The public relations agency objective is to denigrate people by creating favourable interpretations to the following questions. Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry? This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science and as they acknowledge themselves, are about public relations in the climategate emails. The other connection this PR agency has is with David Suzuki a Canadian activist whose daughter was the original Greta.
Let the people who advocate immediate majority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia take note. It would be very nice to have a minimal libertarian government and that is what South African libertarians would like to achieve. But as long as the choice is between being governed by a relatively informed white minority and a Socialist black majority, ‘apartheid’ in South Africa will stay.
The major black ethnic groups lumped together under the general term 'Bantu' are as distinct from one another as Germany and France. They are largely illiterate, largely uncaring, mutually mistrustful, mutually antagonistic. They are not the great single black mass yearning to be free that sentimentalists and self-servers in other lands try to portray them.
I regret the fact that honest, law-abiding blacks cannot own property in or near white cities, but I realize that without this restriction separate development will fail — and with it the capitalist system in South Africa.
As all libertarians should know, unlimited democracies tend towards totalitarian systems, with the rulers competing with each other to control the political machinery. Some years ago, the whites realized that a democracy may deteriorate into a dictatorship in the ‘wrong’ hands—especially when those hands have the wrong color to boot.
KyussB wrote: » They are not climate scientists. They are economists with ties to oil-oligarch Koch funded think tanks... The debate on the hockey stick graph is done and dusted among climate scientists. It is confirmed.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions...
KyussB wrote: » Oh look, another person affiliated with Koch oil-oligarch funded think tanks, producing propaganda material! Tip: 'Skeptic' is key word for Denialist. Google authors for links to oil industry funded think tanks.
I'm a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (I got your email from Kevin Grandia) and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century. It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger's intervention in Science.source
KyussB wrote: » You're ignoring what I said: The hockey stick graph has been replicated independently of Mann's work - it is completely uncontroversial within the climate science community.
Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records... If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions... A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Datasets won't help you when you don't know the underlying assumptions behind them and whether they are linked to the reality or not. If you are genuinely interested start with a skeptical position on the matter and ask lots of questions of the people looking for your money, otherwise how can you tell you getting value for money? Remember it is your sweat and capital that are ultimately up for grabs. If you want a starting position use the Skeptics handbook - part I and part II. They will not give you all the answers you are looking for but it will give you a compass to navigate the debate.
gozunda wrote: » Wrong . You fail to acknowledge it was Manns hocky stick graph (ie most extreme of the projections considered) which was used by the IPCC and touted by Al Gore as an absolute. That data can no longer be relied on. Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia detail that there was considerable concern as to the overt nature of Manns findings. That was over 10 years ago and only now are we seeing published concerns regarding his work. It is an important issue for the very reason that all scientific research requires ongoing rigorous evaluation - something that some here are bizarrely suggesting is not required. You suggest that all the scientists were in agreement with regard to the hocky stick graph. They were not. Ray Bradley, the co-author with Mann on the hockey stick study attempted to dissociated himself from Mike Mann's views on the the primacy of his data over other scientists work prior to the IPCC using it in the published IPCC report. Two scientists namely Phil Jones and Keith Briffa wrote that So no - there is no nice tidy picture with ribbons which wraps this particular debacle up. That questions are being asked is the correct approach. Suggesting 'there is nothing to see here' is certainly not.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » It’s well-established that various proxies can be used to reconstruct rough approximations of past temperatures. The problem occurs when they splice instrumental temperatures onto the end of proxy reconstructions. In the private sector, this is called "fraud." In government and academic climate "science" this is called Mike’s Nature Trick, "nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." It was Mann who first devised the "trick" of splicing in the thermometer record, which was eagerly copied by Phil Jones of the university of east Anglia climate research unit. And as Jones admits, it was very much a "trick" designed to fool governments, the media and the people. The intent was to hide the decline in proxy derived temperatures, where they overlapped the instrumental temperature records, during 20 year and 40 year periods when the real temperatures were rising but the proxy derived temperatures were falling. The problem for them being that if they did not hide the declines in the proxies, it would have shown that their tree ring-based temperature reconstruction methodology was unreliable, spoiled the hockeystick shape of the graph, and undermined the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
KyussB wrote: » Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it... That's why it's a complete non-issue.
It should not be taken as read that Mike's (Mann) series is "the correct one" ... "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data', but in reality the situation is not quite so simple... For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."
KyussB wrote: » Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming. The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it... That's why it's a complete non-issue.
From: Phil Jones Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature 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. Cheers Philsource
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
