Oh Look - Warmists wrong...AGAIN! Kilimenjaro gets it snow cap back

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by nei

I haven't look through all your posts. I was responding to the skeptics who I quoted not skeptics in general. It doesn't sound like you understand my posts, though.

I wasn't copying "talking points", I was responding to silly science. One of the posters was using any pieces of evidence that supported his anti-GW view. One point he says the earth is not warming another post he posts a link saying warming has been beneficial for plant life. You can't have it both ways.

Neither is saying one snowstorm is not relevant to whether an snow cap is retreating a talking point. Saying CO2 can't do anything because its concentration is much lower than Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon doesn't make any sense. And it is not disputed (do you really want to) that without greenhouse gases like CO2 the average temperature of our planet would be far colder. I don't see how any of these are simply "talking points".

From the late Carboniferous to the early Permian was the only time in the last 600 million years when global temperatures and CO2 levels were as low as they are today. Throughout the majority of the planet's history CO2 levels have been more than 7 times what they are today. So to make the unfounded assumption that humans must be cause for the recent extremely minor global temperature increase in the last 150 years is the height of hubris.

We are spending billions pursuing an extremely arrogant, self-serving agenda that will ultimately accomplish nothing beyond lowering our standard of living.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Nomander

No response from the AGW supporters?

You claim climategate was a "non-issue", "nothing to see", right?

So how do you explain the above? Please explain us why it is acceptable to truncate a data trend that does not fit your needs? This isn't something that can be explained away. It shows a severe attempt to hide the discrepancies in the results.





So again, please explain the deleted. Just in case you don't believe such:

[code]
2: begin ; Age-banded MXD
alltit=”Age-banded density NH growing-season reconstruction”
; Period to consider
perst=1402
peren=1960
fac=0.0 ; do not smooth it any further!!!
; restore,filename=’../treeharry/densadj_all(330).idlsave’
; timey=x
; ; CONVERSION FACTORS FOR AGE-BANDED MXD, BY REGRESSION ON INSTR.
; ts=densadj*0.156525 ; converts it from density to temperature anom
timey=newagetime
ts=newagets
kl=where((timey ge perst) and (timey le peren),nyr)
timey=timey(kl)
ts=ts(kl)
; ts=ts(kl)-0.140369 ; to convert it oC wrt 1961-90
end
[/code]

Pretty deliberate don't you think? Explain to us how specifically cutting off such is "appropriate"?

Also, how did this get past peer review? It was published in Science, surely those "replicating" each others results were able to see that there was a deliberate deletion of data in order to shore up the results with the intended conclusion?

Nope, nothing to see here right? Climategate was nothing, Peer Review is working great in climate science!

So no response from those of you who disregard climategate and the issues with hiding declines? Waiting for your talking point sites to come up with a rebuttal? Honestly, the issue is not that hard to understand. Read through it, think through it, if you have an objection, a question, or something that interests you concerning it, by all means... lets hear it!