Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published.
2) How they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline".
3) How they fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't believe
you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If you can't
address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who repeats whatever
he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that. they show a non proffesional
programmer dealing with dirty and insane data. it happens to everybody
that deals with raw data. most raw data is noisy and has artifacts in
it. it is a pain to program. to my mind, the fact that the programs
are innocent and the critics are using code that is not part of the main
work. the code that I looked at was processing the PROXIES. and that
confounds the idea that they were faking the science. I have
temperature data and I dont see any data like that in the set.

so the statement that they were cooking the data is just not borne out.
the data was dirty and required extensive processing.

what I want is somebody to point me to the algorithim for the
TREERING PROXIES.

josephus




--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:01 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published. 2) How
they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline". 3) How they
fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't
believe you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If
you can't address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who
repeats whatever he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that.

snip excuse for lying and outright fraud

A bald faced lie. It is pretty stupid of you to try and pass it off as
"dealing with the data". Idiot. How damned stupid ARE you anyway that you
thought someone would be so stupid as to believe you?

Best I can figure, you're an Anti-AGW crusader pretending to be an AGWer
in order to make them appear to be shameless, bald faced liars and
idiots. No one could be so stupid as to lie like you did and still be
able to work a keyboard.

It said right there in the code "fudge factor" and the numbers were
thrown in for NO REASON other than to produce a false increase in the
temperature.

If you're for real, then damn, there is something wrong with you and
people like you. Just wacko.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

First of all, the accusation I made was that Mr. Dekker was utterly
ignorant of recent events. Unlike you, who told a bald faced laughably
stupid idiotic lie about it.

Secondly, the subject has turned to "head up the ass denial" in the CRU e-
mails. You're and your ilk pray on the stupidity of ignorant people;
anyone who has read the e-mails know how boldly you lie.

Lastly, I was pointing out how stupid Mr. Dekker's argument in support of
the bad arguments (ad hom, post hoc, straw men and so on) being made.

It is not for me to produce a theory, evidence or data, (though Svensmark
has done so) to disprove AGW. It is up to the AGW advocates to prove it;
even the shill frauds at the IPCC don't claim they can prove it, so
listing to the "true believers" who think it is a scientific fact just
shows that they have their heads up Al Gore's ass.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:


At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that
says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause
severe problems in the future.

Not true, Mr. Ward. The "proponents" make a baseless claim that
anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. They don't have a theory, a
theory makes useful predictions. It isn't even a hypothesis, as their
"hypothesis" has failed to predict every damn time.

They not only don't have a hypothesis, but when the opposite of their
claims comes to be, they aren't FAZED by that at all!! Indeed, they claim
the recent record cold and snowfall is a result of AGW!! There is NO
FRACKEN WAY to "disprove" their "theory" to them.

So, it is NOT a theory, it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a baseless
unscientific claim.

snip

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks
which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They
seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they
believe climate models, but don't understand them.

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:01 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many
conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published. 2) How
they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline". 3) How they
fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't
believe you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If
you can't address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who
repeats whatever he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that. they show a non proffesional
programmer dealing with dirty and insane data. it happens to everybody
that deals with raw data. most raw data is noisy and has artifacts in
it. it is a pain to program. to my mind, the fact that the programs
are innocent and the critics are using code that is not part of the main
work. the code that I looked at was processing the PROXIES. and that
confounds the idea that they were faking the science. I have
temperature data and I dont see any data like that in the set.

so the statement that they were cooking the data is just not borne
out.
the data was dirty and required extensive processing.

what I want is somebody to point me to the algorithim for the
TREERING PROXIES.

Don't we all. Join the club.

Maybe you could file a FOIA request. I understand they may be taking
those a bit more seriously nowadays.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:58:14 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many
conspirators.

Martian snipped out Dekker's questions to provide evidence for any of
these allegations, and then claims :

Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events, much
less science.

Mr. Martian : Your inability to back up your own empty allegations with
ANY facts

1) http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
These are the e-mails and they specifically relate to the question at
hand.

2) Here is the code that shows the "fudge factor" in the valadj (value
adjust, obviously)

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]
*0.75 ; fudge factor

End Quote. That is out right fraud.

3) While not directly related, there is the work done by Svensmark and
others who provided a theory that explains much of climate change, and
CO2 of any kind was not invoked.

4) Simple chemistry and AGW are in conflict, in that Chemistry predicts
that warming will cause more CO2 in the atmosphere. I tend to believe
Chemistry, since it produces useful predictions and AGW "science"
predicts nothing.

proves my point that you are are simply echoing beliefs and
spin that the denial industry feeds you.

I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot.

Sadly, I've not gotten so much as a free lump of coal from the big fossil
fuel companies. But then, they never offered and I've never asked. :-D
Seems you lied about the paid part.

Rob

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:


At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that
says anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause
severe problems in the future.

Not true, Mr. Ward. The "proponents" make a baseless claim that
anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. They don't have a theory, a
theory makes useful predictions. It isn't even a hypothesis, as their
"hypothesis" has failed to predict every damn time.

They not only don't have a hypothesis, but when the opposite of their
claims comes to be, they aren't FAZED by that at all!! Indeed, they
claim the recent record cold and snowfall is a result of AGW!! There is
NO FRACKEN WAY to "disprove" their "theory" to them.

So, it is NOT a theory, it is NOT a hypothesis, it is a baseless
unscientific claim.

snip

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks
which cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They
seem unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they
believe climate models, but don't understand them.

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support
for their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data
supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but
none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-)

virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, or
an oxymoron, or a nonsequiter, "from the beginning," and
as embodied in computerized simulacra ("GCMs" e.g.), and
in entirely selective reporting in the Liberal Media (owned
by consWervative) ... so,
you believe that all glaciers or receding, or even a majority of them?

Please kill your your text-generator program, and summarize what your point is.

thus:
on the other hand, it seems that
MPC# nodified his postings, for the worse,
by repeating teh exact same drivel, over-and-over,
as his "reply" to any change in teh argument; oh, well!

thus:
sorry, but i eschew much of the nettiqurtte ideals,
exceroting the absolute minimum for *some* evocation
of the replied-to stuff. the key is
to actually include referenets im *my* reply, instead
of treating exactly as a conversation. OK, so, may be
I spend too much time editing the ****.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support
for their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data
supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but
none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with these
AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-)

I agree with Marvin, the AGWer claims are pathetic. I just don't care as
much about their claims to bother responding to them.
Stephen Wilde has a recent post to WUWT with a reference to Miskolczi here,
in his preliminary points
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/0...odel/#comments

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:30:17 -0500, bw wrote:

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:11:53 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:10:50 -0500, Bill Ward wrote:

Again, NOT EVEN A HYPOTHESIS. Their claim cannot be tested.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support
for their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data
supporting their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but
none of them are willing or able to explain it specifically.

Actually, there have been several attempts using computer models. Each
and every one FAILED to predict. In REAL SCIENCE, at least how we do
science on Mars, this is called a "rejected hypothesis". Not with
these AGWers.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they
propose, there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses
by default, regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff
accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full
of themselves and little else.

It's the sycophant effect. By mindlessly parroting the claims of the
"scientist", they hope to gain respect from the respected glory.

Wow! You're even grouchier than I am. Congratulations. ;-)

I agree with Marvin, the AGWer claims are pathetic. I just don't care as
much about their claims to bother responding to them. Stephen Wilde has
a recent post to WUWT with a reference to Miskolczi here, in his
preliminary points
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/0...odel/#comments

Good stuff - thanks. That's what I mean by an explanation.

Here's the direct link to an explanation of Miskolczi that might help
those who want to understand it:

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate