• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene.. due to CO2 emissions. [W:121]

Is that what you think you have?

Prove I havent ? There are literally dozens of sublinks to both abstracts and full studies from around the world that are available to you there had you chosen to even open them :roll:
 
Last edited:
Prove I havent ? There are literally dozens of sublinks to both abstracts and full studies from around the world that are available to you there had you chosen to even open them :roll:

Don't waste effort on goofs. he thinks manns opinion blog, supported by environmental PR groups, which mann claims his site is not affiliated with, is REAL science by REAL scientists.. It's a PR snowjob, done by men desperate to save face after the hockey stick embarrassment.

he avoids the post showing the site lies, and trolls instead of defending his nonsense.
 
Don't waste effort on goofs. he thinks manns opinion blog, supported by environmental PR groups, which mann claims his site is not affiliated with, is REAL science by REAL scientists.. It's a PR snowjob, done by men desperate to save face after the hockey stick embarrassment.

he avoids the post showing the site lies, and trolls instead of defending his nonsense.

It wasnt goofs I was addressing. Whos got that kinda time :roll:
 
It wasnt goofs I was addressing. Whos got that kinda time :roll:

LOL,oh my bad.. They kind of favor one another.. The whole volatile yet ignorant troll thing..:lol:
 
Don't waste effort on goofs. he thinks manns opinion blog, supported by environmental PR groups, which mann claims his site is not affiliated with, is REAL science by REAL scientists.. It's a PR snowjob, done by men desperate to save face after the hockey stick embarrassment.

he avoids the post showing the site lies, and trolls instead of defending his nonsense.


Yeah. Those references to Nature and Science Mag really are biased. And my references to Real Climate, a site run by actual climate scientists (published and tenured professors and academically and professionally well qualified) pales in comparison to the WSJ editorials your read once and the Rush Limbaugh rants you hear.

I should be more like you and just spout stuff off without referencing anything.
 
Yeah. Those references to Nature and Science Mag really are biased. And my references to Real Climate, a site run by actual climate scientists (published and tenured professors and academically and professionally well qualified) pales in comparison to the WSJ editorials your read once and the Rush Limbaugh rants you hear.

I should be more like you and just spout stuff off without referencing anything.

These people get their science from Rush Limbaugh? Damn.
 
That doesn't mean we have to step into the trap, though. I think we should reconsider the theory, rebuild the models, check the numbers and crunch the numbers some more..

Thats called SCIENCE. And scientists are doing that every day. The theory is solid, the models have borne out, the numbers have been rechecked multiple times, and crunched over and over again. The verdict is pretty clear. Every day you delay inaction, its going to cost you more and more money. And the argument to do something gets tougher as the solution seems more and more expensive. Ten years ago we could have moved on this because the data was clear then. Its even clearer now.
 
Thats called SCIENCE. And scientists are doing that every day. The theory is solid, the models have borne out, the numbers have been rechecked multiple times, and crunched over and over again. The verdict is pretty clear. Every day you delay inaction, its going to cost you more and more money. And the argument to do something gets tougher as the solution seems more and more expensive. Ten years ago we could have moved on this because the data was clear then. Its even clearer now.
Would that the theory were as solid as you claim, but demonstrably, it isn't.

And the models only model what the modeler wants them to model, what the modeler tells them to model. If the model doesn't deliver the output they want or expect, they adjust their scant few (compared to the real world) variables until it does. There's your "SCIENCE." Rather than observe what's going on in real life, they're observing what their models are outputting and comparing that with their hypotheses and modifying the former until it matches the latter.

If the climate actually manages to cooperate with their models for a period, so much the better. If they don't - WHICH THEY HAVEN'T for quite some time now, well - so what? That's NOT their criteria for success.

Their criteria for success is how well their models demonstrate their hypotheses - which is why they conveniently (and disingenuously) allow for any weather outcome as "proof" of their hypotheses.
 
Would that the theory were as solid as you claim, but demonstrably, it isn't.

And the models only model what the modeler wants them to model, what the modeler tells them to model. If the model doesn't deliver the output they want or expect, they adjust their scant few (compared to the real world) variables until it does. There's your "SCIENCE." Rather than observe what's going on in real life, they're observing what their models are outputting and comparing that with their hypotheses and modifying the former until it matches the latter.

If the climate actually manages to cooperate with their models for a period, so much the better. If they don't - WHICH THEY HAVEN'T for quite some time now, well - so what? That's NOT their criteria for success.

Their criteria for success is how well their models demonstrate their hypotheses - which is why they conveniently (and disingenuously) allow for any weather outcome as "proof" of their hypotheses.


In other words, when the people thirty years ago modeled climate and told us that this would be a much hotter decade than in the 80s - in fact off the charts hotter than any other observation, you somehow thing they got it wrong.

Thanks for your input and well referenced post.
 
Yeah. Those references to Nature and Science Mag really are biased. And my references to Real Climate, a site run by actual climate scientists (published and tenured professors and academically and professionally well qualified) pales in comparison to the WSJ editorials your read once and the Rush Limbaugh rants you hear.

I should be more like you and just spout stuff off without referencing anything.

LOL, you comment yet avoid my post on real climate like its toxic... What gives dude? Do I have to re-post it?
 
In other words, when the people thirty years ago modeled climate and told us that this would be a much hotter decade than in the 80s - in fact off the charts hotter than any other observation, you somehow thing they got it wrong.

Thanks for your input and well referenced post.
Well it seems to me that I referenced it as well as you just did yours.

You're welcome, btw. :2wave:

.

P.S. I'd love to see those scientific "off the charts" data that is [scientifically] "hotter than any other observation." I imagine the precision is... anomalous?
 
Prove I havent ? There are literally dozens of sublinks to both abstracts and full studies from around the world that are available to you there had you chosen to even open them :roll:

I knew your response would be this. Here, I'll help you:

I am not challenging the papers on that website. Those are peer reviewed. The part you're missing is that their presentation, and your interpretation of them, is wrong. Those reconstructions aren't wrong, you are.
When that website claims that most of the proxies show the MWP warmer than now, it's technically correct. What that website never seemed to tell you is that "now" doesn't mean the year 2013. In most cases, it's 1950. And in most cases, it is not at all obvious that this is the case when you just look at the chart given. The people who made those charts placed them in scientific papers intended to be read in full by other scientists. People who'd realize that this was the case.

That website isn't peer reviewed. It's just linking a bunch of peer reviewed material in a deceptive fashion.

Don't waste effort on goofs. he thinks manns opinion blog, supported by environmental PR groups, which mann claims his site is not affiliated with, is REAL science by REAL scientists.. It's a PR snowjob, done by men desperate to save face after the hockey stick embarrassment.

he avoids the post showing the site lies, and trolls instead of defending his nonsense.

I've literally never once linked that website but feel free to make up more ****.
 
Last edited:
I knew your response would be this. Here, I'll help you:

I am not challenging the papers on that website. Those are peer reviewed. The part you're missing is that their presentation, and your interpretation of them, is wrong. Those reconstructions aren't wrong, you are.
When that website claims that most of the proxies show the MWP warmer than now, it's technically correct. What that website never seemed to tell you is that "now" doesn't mean the year 2013. In most cases, it's 1950. And in most cases, it is not at all obvious that this is the case when you just look at the chart given. The people who made those charts placed them in scientific papers intended to be read in full by other scientists. People who'd realize that this was the case.

That website isn't peer reviewed. It's just linking a bunch of peer reviewed material in a deceptive fashion

Please feel free to cite an example of this or of any paleoclimatic studies which directly contradict any of the papers here ? Hint citing Marcott or Mann wont cut it :D
 
Please feel free to cite an example of this or of any paleoclimatic studies which directly contradict any of the papers here ? Hint citing Marcott or Mann wont cut it :D

Um, you don't get it. It's not a contradiction. Did you read what I wrote or did you just mash the keyboard when you saw I responded? I specifically said I wasn't challenging those papers. All of these paleoclimate reconstructions have always been this way. Only a handful deal with the last 50 years. (particularly the really long-term reconstructions. The "resolution" of the 500k+ proxies can be a century or more, meaning each data point is actually just a rough average over an entire century) (also, a lot of the time they don't bother because we have thermometers that cover the last century pretty darn well, why get a proxy for temperature you already know?)

And how come tree ring proxies are suddenly ok for you?
 
Last edited:
Um, you don't get it. It's not a contradiction. Did you read what I wrote or did you just mash the keyboard when you saw I responded? I specifically said I wasn't challenging those papers. All of these paleoclimate reconstructions have always been this way. Only a handful deal with the last 50 years. (particularly the really long-term reconstructions. The "resolution" of the 500k+ proxies can be a century or more, meaning each data point is actually just a rough average over an entire century) (also, a lot of the time they don't bother because we have thermometers that cover the last century pretty darn well, why get a proxy for temperature you already know?)

And how come tree ring proxies are suddenly ok for you?

A simple 'no I cant' would have saved you some keystrokes there :roll:
 
Please feel free to cite an example of this or of any paleoclimatic studies which directly contradict any of the papers here ? Hint citing Marcott or Mann wont cut it :D

LOL. In other words, you need to use made up stuff.
 
FYI- gslack is confusing Real Climate with Michael Mann's blog (does he have one?).

LOL, dude do you EVER read anything? Seriously I showed you realclimate was in fact Mann and company's blog.. Their list of the so-called "working climate scientists" who run the site...

RealClimate: Contributor Bio’s

Contributors
Filed under: Contributor Bio's — group @ 6 December 2004
The current permanent contributors to content on this site are:

Gavin Schmidt
Michael Mann
Caspar Ammann
Rasmus Benestad
Ray Bradley
Stefan Rahmstorf
Eric Steig
David Archer
Ray Pierrehumbert
Thibault de Garidel
Jim Bouldin
William Connolley was a contributor, but has now left academia, although his posts are still online.

And once again we see you showing how little you actually know about the references you use... Aren't you getting tired of embarrassing yourself?
 
I knew your response would be this. Here, I'll help you:

I am not challenging the papers on that website. Those are peer reviewed. The part you're missing is that their presentation, and your interpretation of them, is wrong. Those reconstructions aren't wrong, you are.
When that website claims that most of the proxies show the MWP warmer than now, it's technically correct. What that website never seemed to tell you is that "now" doesn't mean the year 2013. In most cases, it's 1950. And in most cases, it is not at all obvious that this is the case when you just look at the chart given. The people who made those charts placed them in scientific papers intended to be read in full by other scientists. People who'd realize that this was the case.

That website isn't peer reviewed. It's just linking a bunch of peer reviewed material in a deceptive fashion.



I've literally never once linked that website but feel free to make up more ****.

LOL, read what I wrote... I said "Don't waste effort on goofs." I thought he was talking to goofs again, and said as much. And in my defense, you just showed why I made the error.. LOL
 
LOL, dude do you EVER read anything? Seriously I showed you realclimate was in fact Mann and company's blog.. Their list of the so-called "working climate scientists" who run the site...

RealClimate: Contributor Bio’s



And once again we see you showing how little you actually know about the references you use... Aren't you getting tired of embarrassing yourself?

So one of a dozen makes it 'Mann's blog'?
 
LOL, dude do you EVER read anything? Seriously I showed you realclimate was in fact Mann and company's blog.. Their list of the so-called "working climate scientists" who run the site...

RealClimate: Contributor Bio’s

And once again we see you showing how little you actually know about the references you use... Aren't you getting tired of embarrassing yourself?

Some more info on the objectivity of RealClimate.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about RealClimate.org

Nuff said :roll:
 
Some more info on the objectivity of RealClimate.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about RealClimate.org

Nuff said :roll:

LOL! That's the website of the nutter Poptrch, who used to post here before he slunk away in shame.

Real objective.

Each of the scientists posting on real climate is a distinguished, published climate scientist, with very good academic reputations. You're site is written by a nutjob.
 
LOL! That's the website of the nutter Poptrch, who used to post here before he slunk away in shame.

Real objective.

Each of the scientists posting on real climate is a distinguished, published climate scientist, with very good academic reputations. You're site is written by a nutjob.

Yeah and of course we all know you are the final arbiter of that that given you are always the most objective poster here ....... NOT! :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom