AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

It's that pesky accountant again reporting on the timeline of the McIntyre requests for information from Mann:

Hockey Stick - loc 2116

 

And how many countries did this apply to? What percentage of the world temperature recordings does this represent? Why did not Mcintyre get his information from the SAME sources that the CRU used?

 

You can't.

- - - Updated - - -

Curious that the "deniers" are in favor of complete transparency and the "alarmists" are not.

 

That has nothing to do with what I said

What the deniers really do deny is that there is a whole world of people working on this problem. Australia has two CSIRO and the BOM as well as the Garnaut review. Japan has an independent body with it's BOM. NASA is independent of the Hadley Centre. Crap even BRAZIL has an independent body looking at climate change.

But the BEST project really really put paid to a lot of this (*)(*)(*)(*)e. Berkeley Earth set out to review the temperature measurements independently - and came to much the same conclusions as everyone else

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Of course as soon as they published their findings there were screams of "conspiracy" from the denialists

 

What conclusions did the come to ?? And which "denialists" screamed ??

BTW, Climate etc. (Dr.Judith Curry) treats Berkeley Earth with respect and many posts from Berkeley Earth are discussed on her website:

https://judithcurry.com/?s=Berkeley+Earth

 

AGW claims humans are the biggest cause of global warming. Not Climate change per se. I have studied the climate change topic extensively. I agree that at the present time the earth shows signs of warming, however, studies do not not result in scientific "proof" that humans can significantly alter the climate cycle. They remain scientific hypothesis. We should as residents on this earth attempt to preserve our resources. No question. But should do it it without putting financial hardships that lower our quality of life where doing so will, according to scientist , will have a minimal effect on the environment. Scientist agree we are still in a preglacial phase of the climate cycle in the long term.

 

Why do I feel there is a disconnect between the claim "studied extensively" and the topic of AGW? That is right because the initial claim - that climate change is seemingly caused by climate change

yep that is logical

 

If you go on the link I gave you to the BEST project you will see the conclusions - which are that the climate scientists are right

now as to the denialists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

 

You still can't show what that is after I did and you say I lose. Talk about delusional! LOL

 

There is a reason for over 100 models and such a wide temperature range for 'projections' and why there is much debate about CO2 sensitivity. Can you guess why?

 

I hope you realize they all use the 'adjusted' data (Karl et al) data to use for their base data in their global temperature models.

 

Lets be clear. You are NOT in favor of complete transparency. You are in favor of very selective outrageous standards of transparency that only apply to one small branch of science. You do not accept the current gold standard of transparency and you want to change it but for only AGW research. No one is the scientific community accepts your standards. NO ONE except some former accountant

 

Please define what the climate scientists consider as "right". And how does the findings of the Berkeley Earth group prove that the climate scientists are "right" ??

Who wrote the wikipedia article ?? And is that all that the wiki author could come up with "proving" that the denialist bloggers screamed that Berkely Earth was dishonestly analyzing data to prove the global warming alarmists claims.

I've given you links to Moshers comments on Climate, etc

Here are McIntyre and Watts:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/22/first-thoughts-on-best/

http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/05/bogus/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Berkeley+Earth

These discussions are respectful and hardly the screaming attacks on Berkeley Earth which you portrayed them as. I'd recommend actually reading the discussions of the Berkeley Earth work (Dr. Muller is well respected) and relying less on wikipedia information from unknown sources.

- - - Updated - - -

I am absolutely in favor of complete transparency. How can any other conclusion be arrived at from my comments in this thread ??

 

When you get it approved for ALL scientists then get back to the AGW scientists

 

Still no clue what constitutes good science I see.

 

Educate me. And then tell me who is meeting these standards. This should be hilarious

 

It is easier to prove who hasn't like the climate gate emails proved.

 

So no one. Thanks. You make this so easy

 

Well, you may think your alarmist heroes are non-persons.

 

They meet the same standards as every other scientist. You have admitted this. You lose

 

How would you know? You can't even tell us what those standards are other than linking to directions for submitting a paper for publication. Maybe you should quit while you are behind.

 

Publication? Are you nuts? The NSF does not publish research papers Einstein. You are hilarious

 

Still can't show what good science is? Go figure!

 

And neither can ANY scientist according to you. Lol. Gotta go. Gotta read some more NSF published research papers. Hilarious!

 

Better read more on your link on how to submit papers since that is all you seem to know about what makes good science.