Now we know who pays our trolls

[WeatherRusty]

Once upon a time I started a thread in Eastern about Arctic sea ice. It was probably the longest thread in this forum's history and LEK carried it over to here. It wasn't fighting, it wasn't political, it was about facts observed and measured. Sure there was some heated exchanges, but it wasn't all about fighting. It's only when the cultists get on their soapbox does the fighting truly begin.

Global war, er uh, Climate Change is not about facts observed or measured, it is about a movement of individuals and governments to control masses of people. That and some serious self-aggrandizement on the part of a select few individuals involved. Saving the world can make for a big ego.

The only true facts are that we know the climate is changing, that is has ALWAYS been changing and that we MAY be contributing to it. I don't believe our contributions amount to very much. I believe that by studying this for the next 30-50 yrs we will have a better picture. Of course those who wish to profit and control have long ago said we have passed the tipping point and 30-50 yrs is too late. Well, according to them it's already too late so there you have it. It's too late and nothing, I'll repeat slower, n-o-t-h-i-n-g is going to slow it down over the next 10 yrs.

So keep the doom and gloom and we are fooked etc out of it, observe and measure and let's have real science and debate on what is happening because nothing is going to change in the short to medium anyway.

It is to late, and nothing we do is going to slow it down over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly. I say that based on the science you either cast aside as junk, or that you are unaware of.

We have a solid physical basis for why human activities are causing a rapid build up of atmospheric CO2 and how that build up is affecting the greenhouse effect, which in turn is producing an imbalance in the Earth's energy budget. Yes we know climate is changing (although some skeptics deny it), that climate always changes (irrelevant). We know for an absolute fact that we are the cause of the current warming, there is no maybe about it. What we are less certain of is how much and how fast the warming will continue. To this point, natural variability has at times been able to neutralize the warming, but it has not been able to prevent it.

Your second paragraph is political paranoia.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The idea that what you call amarmists ruin the sea Ice thread is completely bogus.

calling marriatta marie is like calling bethesda becky. It's incredibly immature. I do not in the least bit understand it. it just creates more deviation from facts.

Speaking of facts just speak them. nothin mattets more. this is about finding factual truth the best we can with what we have today.

Let someone else be the deceiver posting old or bogus data, let someone else be the defector bringing up things with no backing. When they dont bring the data, do it for them. Let someone else be the obnoxious tool trying to derail every thread. When they do ignore them. That simple. Keep posting data and facts, keep a healthly discusion alive.

We have all been guilty. But I have cleaned up my act and learned great knowledge from sticking to a set of values and principles.

Name calling, alarming assertions, and late night dunken confusing rants do not help.

[cheetah440]

It is to late, and nothing we do is going to slow it down over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly. I say that based on the science you either cast aside as junk, or that you are unaware of.

We have a solid physical basis for why human activities are causing a rapid build up of atmospheric CO2 and how that build up is affecting the greenhouse effect, which in turn is producing an imbalance in the Earth's energy budget. Yes we know climate is changing (although some skeptics deny it), that climate always changes (irrelevant). We know for an absolute fact that we are the cause of the current warming, there is no maybe about it. What we are less certain of is how much and how fast the warming will continue. To this point, natural variability has at times been able to neutralize the warming, but it has not been able to prevent it.

Your second paragraph is political paranoia.

We also know that it was warmer, I and others believe much warmer, just a few hundred years ago. No SUV's, no evil oil companies. So my completely objective opinion is that we really don't know enough about what is going on to enslave billions of people into a life deprived of progress and comfort because of some crack pot science.

[TerryM]

what you claimed--that you started a serious thread on sea ice and that you participated in it in a knowledge-based and sensible way--was a lie, as the link clearly shows.

you're not in this forum to discuss science; if you were you would have addressed the tree ring question I asked you last week. you're simply here to post crap to rile people up.

as for ignoring you: I'll continue to point out your outright lies and the lack of facts undergirding the dumb assertions you make. if you don't like that, then post in good faith.

Also posting on the appropriate thread might help.

This particular one is to discuss Trolls who are being paid by Heartland as well as others to lie about climate change. If you have no opinion on this, why would you be posting here?

[PhillipS]

We also know that it was warmer, I and others believe much warmer, just a few hundred years ago. No SUV's, no evil oil companies. So my completely objective opinion is that we really don't know enough about what is going on to enslave billions of people into a life deprived of progress and comfort because of some crack pot science.

Please provide links to the peer-reviewed research supporting your assertion. If you can't, or won't, do that then your unsupported opinion is noted.

Unless you have any science to add to the discussion - spare us your political rants. They are completely OT.

[cheetah440]

Please provide links to the peer-reviewed research supporting your assertion. If you can't, or won't, do that then your unsupported opinion is noted.

Unless you have any science to add to the discussion - spare us your political rants. They are completely OT.

The peer reviewed canard again huh. Go ask M&M about that and about how long they asked for simply information and were denied. The only peer reviewed you cultists accept is cult peer reviewed.If someone writes something contrary to the cult, they are simply attacked and maligned, and what we know from climategate, is that it is coordinated by the cult. Which makes the entire notion of peer reviewing a joke.

[TerryM]

The peer reviewed canard again huh. Go ask M&M about that and about how long they asked for simply information and were denied. The only peer reviewed you cultists accept is cult peer reviewed.If someone writes something contrary to the cult, they are simply attacked and maligned, and what we know from climategate, is that it is coordinated by the cult. Which makes the entire notion of peer reviewing a joke.

Can't you understand that the stuff you are posting was dreamed up by paid propagandists and disseminated by the same. There is no truth in it other than the truth that those paying for the lies have been exposed.

[PhillipS]

The peer reviewed canard again huh. Go ask M&M about that and about how long they asked for simply information and were denied. The only peer reviewed you cultists accept is cult peer reviewed.If someone writes something contrary to the cult, they are simply attacked and maligned, and what we know from climategate, is that it is coordinated by the cult. Which makes the entire notion of peer reviewing a joke.

It's not a canard - it's the way science works. Data and analyses are paramount and opinions mean very little. Since you haven't backed up your assertion that temps were higher in the past then we can only conclude that there is no data that indicates that.

An idea that's believed without evidence is a myth. So the claim that the MWP was warmer than today isn't fact - it's myth. About on the same level as believing in unicorns.

[TerryM]

Some confirmations are coming in - from those implicated.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/15/426174/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/

Sad thing is that the next time someone needs to buy some bad science they'll drag these guys out again.

What do they tell their kids that they do for a living?

[turtlehurricane]

The topic is money being spent to derail any discussion about climate change. LEK has made 11 posts here to derail this topic. How much is he being paid to do so?

This is absurd.

All of you who think that there is anyone on this board being payed to push an anti-AGW agenda are no better than moon landing conspiracy theorists.

[LithiaWx]

This is absurd.

All of you who think that there is anyone on this board being payed to push an anti-AGW agenda are no better than moon landing conspiracy theorists.

Really. Like I said in another post the anyone who thinks that people on this board are important enough to be paid to debunk alarmism or push an anti-AGW agenda is mentally ill. These ideas are delusions of grandeur which is a mental illness.

[cheetah440]

Can't you understand that the stuff you are posting was dreamed up by paid propagandists and disseminated by the same. There is no truth in it other than the truth that those paying for the lies have been exposed.

I think for myself. No propaganda, no lies, nothing paid for to make me believe. I'm not on any payroll as this OP implies. Don't suck Koch either as you implied. Unlike you cultists, we rely on the facts and the science.

peer review in Climate science is nothing more than pal review.

There was a MWP, it has been warmer just a short time ago that it is today, Mann was wrong, was proven wrong and the smoking gun a cult was founded upon is bad statistical work. This is just plain fact, not opinion.

It's bad science.

Before you ask, I don't need to be a pilot to realize a plane is being flown poorly either.

[cheetah440]

This is absurd.

All of you who think that there is anyone on this board being payed to push an anti-AGW agenda are no better than moon landing conspiracy theorists.

Just goes to show how cult like these whackadoodles really are. As if the Amexwx CC forum is important. LOL.

[TerryM]

Really. Like I said in another post the anyone who thinks that people on this board are important enough to be paid to debunk alarmism or push an anti-AGW agenda is mentally ill. These ideas are delusions of grandeur which is a mental illness.

Frankly I think to get any money you'd have to have a decent education.

What I do believe is that any number of you go to WUWT, CO2 Science, or other paid propagandist sites, see something that looks good, and bring it back here to present as fact.

The fact is that these facts you 'discovered' were planted by paid propagandists to be used just as you used them.

If I honestly was taken in by these jerks I'd be furious.

If I knew it was a lie, I'd try to defend my position - and theirs.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think for myself. No propaganda, no lies, nothing paid for to make me believe. I'm not on any payroll as this OP implies. Don't suck Koch either as you implied. Unlike you cultists, we rely on the facts and the science.

peer review in Climate science is nothing more than pal review.

There was a MWP, it has been warmer just a short time ago that it is today, Mann was wrong, was proven wrong and the smoking gun a cult was founded upon is bad statistical work. This is just plain fact, not opinion.

It's bad science.

Before you ask, I don't need to be a pilot to realize a plane is being flown poorly either.

You speak out of ten sides of your mouth.

You also mix opinion, fact, truth, lies, data, bs, and so on.

You call others out and then to do the exact same thing.

[dabize]

I think for myself. No propaganda, no lies, nothing paid for to make me believe. I'm not on any payroll as this OP implies. Don't suck Koch either as you implied. Unlike you cultists, we rely on the facts and the science.

peer review in Climate science is nothing more than pal review.

There was a MWP, it has been warmer just a short time ago that it is today, Mann was wrong, was proven wrong and the smoking gun a cult was founded upon is bad statistical work. This is just plain fact, not opinion.

WUWT is giving you stuff that WAS produced by a guy being paid to do so by Big Oil.

So even if you are not on the payroll, you are a dupe of someone who is. Is that better?

As for "pal review", I must say that I have some sympathy, having been on the wrong side of that one.

However, I was alone and had very little funding, and could not prove that the conventional wisdom was wrong - I could just present data that made it unlikely.

And eventually, I won the war - my problem now is getting credit for being first to see what I saw, which is being conveniently forgotten by some.

However, the science you are accusing of being collusively untested conventional wisdom is ALSO well known to be based on chemical principles that ALL scientists have accepted since the Nineteenth Century. You can't get stuff past even lax, buddy-boy peer review with stuff like that.

It's just not the same thing.

As for the bolded phrase - this is drivel and is no credit to your wit.

This is the kind of thing that causes serious people to lose patience with you.

[PhillipS]

I think for myself. No propaganda, no lies, nothing paid for to make me believe. I'm not on any payroll as this OP implies. Don't suck Koch either as you implied. Unlike you cultists, we rely on the facts and the science.

peer review in Climate science is nothing more than pal review.

There was a MWP, it has been warmer just a short time ago that it is today, Mann was wrong, was proven wrong and the smoking gun a cult was founded upon is bad statistical work. This is just plain fact, not opinion.

It's bad science.

Before you ask, I don't need to be a pilot to realize a plane is being flown poorly either.

No MWP data means it's not a fact just because you repeatedly say so. You are still just spouting denialist myths. Is that really the best you can do? How sad and pathetic.

.

[cheetah440]

No MWP data means it's not a fact just because you repeatedly say so. You are still just spouting denialist myths. Is that really the best you can do? How sad and pathetic.

.

The MWP was once a fact according the IPCC.

IPCC 1990 Figure 7c.

Even back then the poor MWP was getting short changed...(can't even make this stuff up it's so damn laughable)

http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

And then with Mann's groundbreaking work it was all re-written.

So now the MWP is a myth because someone used terrible math to prove it never really existed?

It sure is sad and pathetic.

[WeatherRusty]

The MWP was once a fact according the IPCC.

IPCC 1990 Figure 7c.

Even back then the poor MWP was getting short changed...(can't even make this stuff up it's so damn laughable)

http://climateaudit....072previewtrue/

And then with Mann's groundbreaking work it was all re-written.

So now the MWP is a myth because someone used terrible math to prove it never really existed?

It sure is sad and pathetic.

Climateaudit versus The National Academy of Sciences

[TerryM]

You are aware that Steve Mcintyre is chairman of Trelawney Mining, a prospector with no background in climate science?

[LakeEffectKing]

You are aware that Steve Mcintyre is chairman of Trelawney Mining, a prospector with no background in climate science?

Stop derailing your own thread.

So I heard the most damning of the stolen document was faked. And you wondered why I didn't have any comments.... LOL!

[TerryM]

Forbes Magazine - that leftist rag - chimes in

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/16/what-happened-at-heartland/2/

[TerryM]

Stop derailing your own thread.

So I heard the most damning of the stolen document was faked. And you wondered why I didn't have any comments.... LOL!

That implies that all the others were not - without providing any evidence that the one they say was faked wasn't real.

My understanding is that Heartland has apologized to some of the named - proof of authenticity.

BTW

What makes you think this is my thread?

[dabize]

Forbes Magazine - that leftist rag - chimes in

http://www.forbes.co...at-heartland/2/

Surprisingly good article

Some of the comments were good too.

It reminds one that preparing for AGW is good ECONOMIC policy too, and will make entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk RICH.

[PhillipS]

The MWP was once a fact according the IPCC.

IPCC 1990 Figure 7c.

Even back then the poor MWP was getting short changed...(can't even make this stuff up it's so damn laughable)

http://climateaudit....072previewtrue/

And then with Mann's groundbreaking work it was all re-written.

So now the MWP is a myth because someone used terrible math to prove it never really existed?

It sure is sad and pathetic.

Did you actually read what you linked to? The handrawn schematic from the 1990 IPCC, and the 1965 Lamb paper were both for the Central England Temperature (CET) record, not a global paleoclimate reconstruction. The oldest portion of the curves are based on "Preferred values including temperatures adjusted to fit botanical indications" and "Analyst's opinion" - proxies and opinions.

And what I found most entertaining was the updated version of the Lamb plot and its accompanying text:

Now that we’ve established that IPCC 1990 Figure 7c is derived from the Lamb 1965 CET, what would happen if Lamb’s figure were brought up to date. Here’s my calculation below. In this case, I’ve shown the 1950-1999 CET average, which is about 0.12 deg C higher than the value shown in IPCC 1990 due to the warm 1990s. I’ve also shown what the 2000-2049 average would look like if the 2000-2007 average were continued for the rest of the half-century. This would be about 0.25 deg C higher than the corresponding MWP maximum in Lamb Table II (though the last half 20th century was still below the Lamb maximum).

(emphasis mine)

So you provided evidence that the MWP was only a regional warm spell and was cooler than today's temperatures. Wow! In soccer that's known as a 'own goal'. I won't even point out that you linked to a blog post and not peer-reviewed research. So - do you still believe in unicorns?

[dabize]

we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, too.

What was that line (from Malraux, Sartre or some such illustrious Frenchie)

"Just because 50 million Frenchmen believe a stupid thing.......doesn't mean it isn't still a stupid thing"

Applies on this side of the Atlantic too too...........

[turtlehurricane]

we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, too.

The Medieval warm period is very real...

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Medieval warm period is very real...

Would you elaborate?

[WeatherRusty]

The Medieval warm period is very real...

Seen in the larger context the MWP and LIA are of little consequence. Prior to the current warm period the MWP was not even the warmest of our Holocene interglacial. So why the hysteria over the MWP?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Seen in the larger context the MWP and LIA are of little consequence. Prior to the current warm period the MWP was not even the warmest of our Holocene interglacial. So why the hysteria over the MWP?

deflection Sir.

Iv'e read over quite a few papers about dating wood in glacial retreats in Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. Most of the wood they wind continues to date older and older. Well beyong the MWP. Some of this is coming from Glacierst that have lost 50-90% of there Ice Mass since the early 1900's. Or even before. Between wood and other organic findings and ice cores. That ice has been there for thousands of years, in some cases upwards of 30-40K years.

If the MWP was warmer than today.

Then How could the arctic glacial and land ice be so much warmer than today?

Sea ice would also have to exist at a higher level, thus having a much stronger albedo feedback. As well as the much stronger glacial ice albedo feedback.