"UK EXPOSES "GLOBAL WARMING" HOAX!! - DELIBERATE LYING AND MANIPULATIONS!!"
UsenetRanger
Decay.........Donchaknow........Ain't It
GRAND?..........Heehee.........
Joe Cool
Mind splaining how this one story exposes the entire global warming
theory as a hoax???
P. U. Stinkly
You see, a handful of chaps at *one* university said some things that
deniers think sound suspicious so it *proves* that 98% of the worlds
climatologists are all frauds. How can you be so dense? He posted a
*blog* after all!
Must I think of *everything*?
P. U. Stinkly
>
> From: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: ray bradley <rbra...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> mhu...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> Cc: k.br...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.os...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
> N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
> 1999
> for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
> data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
thanks for proving my point.
UsenetRanger
No Problemo, "Joe".........It ISN'T just "One Story"..........Take Off
your Leftist Blinders and LQQK Around once in a
while..........DumbAss.............
Joe Cool
Yes, you blabberiong idiot, it is just one story. Donchaknow......
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Joe Cool wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 6:11 pm, UsenetRanger <usenetran...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Yup.......The "Global Warming HOAX is Bursting Open in Rottenness and
>>> Decay.........Donchaknow........Ain't It
>>> GRAND?..........Heehee.........
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yhx9juw
>>
>> Mind splaining how this one story exposes the entire global warming
>> theory as a hoax???
It only takes a little dab of shit in your ice cream, to ruin the whole
bowl.
It has all been a questionable hypothesis, the need to hide methods and
Fudge numbers is not SCIENCE. SCIENCE is open and provable....
TheLoneRanger100
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO it isn't just "One Story", you Inbred Halfwit........
Tater Gumfries
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:42:17 -0500, "P. U. Stinkly"
>
>
>
>
> From: Phil Jones <p.jo...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: ray bradley <rbrad...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,m...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> mhug...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> Cc: k.bri...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osb...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
> N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
> 1999
> for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
> data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
Sounds like Phil Jones will have to be investigated for possible
scientific fraud.
Tater
Tom Sr.
wrote:
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075...
> From: Phil Jones <p.jo...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: ray bradley <rbrad...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,m...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
> mhug...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> Cc: k.bri...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osb...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
> N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for
> 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate
> for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
> Cheers
> Phil
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
Now I have already answered this in great deal and at length in
another subject thread. Was that beyond your reading level?
So now, Postie, let me give you the shorter version
This is the main quote from that email that the climate-change deniers
are using to scream "CLIMATEGATE":
----------
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
----------
How many of those Climate-Change deniers who are yelling "fraud" and
"scam" even KNOW what "Mike's Nature trick" means in scientific
terms?
It is blatantly obvious that YOU do not, Postie. Nor did you bother
to look this up. Nor, I strongly suspect, did you even *think* to
look it up to see what was meant.
But, you see, I have a good, soldi background in science, so I *did*
wonder what that phrase referrred to.
**********
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this
evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy?
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature
patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998),
published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the
technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the
reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the
context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree
ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records
after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998,
suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature
in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in
Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence
problem. So when you look at Phil Jones' email in the context of the
science discussed, it is not the scheming of a climate conspiracy but
technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the
peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who
actually read the links people share, even more information is
available here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves
**********
You see, Postie, like the rest of the deniers, you *failed* to realize
this email was a discussion of SCIENCE. Instead you fools just
*assumed* -- very wrongly -- that you understood what was meant --
when the simple truth is, you did NOT.
So the "trick" referred to in the email is *NOT* a trick at all, but
rather a decade-long established, science-based adjustment for the
fact that tree-rings [i.e. Mike's Nature] started in the 1960s to no
longer reflecting the more accurate temperature readings made by
modern equipment than were available in the past.
The truth is, you have NOTHING.
Like, duh, you losers.
-Tom Sr.
P.S. Do keep posting this email in other subject threads, Postie, so
that I can just cut-and-paste my reply into them to easily prove you
clueless dumbass don't even know what you are talking about.
"Climategate"??? Ha ha!
Tom Sr.
> On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, First Post <last_p...@Lying.invalid> wrote:
> > I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> > to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> > 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
> Sounds like Phil Jones will have to be investigated for possible
> scientific fraud.
Nope, Tater.
See my previous post above.
First Postie, like every ultraconservative, climate-change denier k00k
I have read or heard about, NEVER to bother to ask themselves, what
"Mike's Nature trick" actually MEANT.
They just *assumed* they knew.
They were wrong.
This is what it *does* mean:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
-Tom Sr.
Yup
dog.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Mind splaining how this one story exposes the entire global warming
> >> theory as a hoax???
>
> It only takes a little dab of shit in your ice cream, to ruin the whole
> bowl.
And yet you prefer eating nothing BUT shit.
> It has all been a questionable hypothesis, the need to hide methods and
> Fudge numbers is not SCIENCE. SCIENCE is open and provable....
Oh right - the fudged numbers and shady methods belong to the deniers,
but don't let that fact stop you from trying to get others to eat the
same shit you savor.
Tom Sr.
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:14:04 -0800 (PST), "Tom Sr."
> thread is in instead of redirecting to other groupsd and trimming
> groups as it suits you
>
>
>
> >So now, Postie, let me give you the shorter version
>
> >This is the main quote from that email that the climate-change deniers
> >are using to scream "CLIMATEGATE":
>
> >----------
> >"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> >to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
> >1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
> >----------
>
> >How many of those Climate-Change deniers who are yelling "fraud" and
> >"scam" even KNOW what "Mike's Nature trick" means in scientific
> >terms?
>
> scientific process you fucking idiot.
> >**********
>
> >You see, Postie, like the rest of the deniers, you *failed* to realize
> >this email was a discussion of SCIENCE. Instead you fools just
> >*assumed* -- very wrongly -- that you understood what was meant --
> >when the simple truth is, you did NOT.
>
> >So the "trick" referred to in the email is *NOT* a trick at all, but
> >rather a decade-long established, science-based adjustment for the
> >fact that tree-rings [i.e. Mike's Nature] started in the 1960s to no
> >longer reflecting the more accurate temperature readings made by
> >modern equipment than were available in the past.
>
> >The truth is, you have NOTHING.
>
> >Like, duh, you losers.
>
> > -Tom Sr.
>
> >P.S. Do keep posting this email in other subject threads, Postie, so
> >that I can just cut-and-paste my reply into them to easily prove you
> >clueless dumbass don't even know what you are talking about.
>
> >"Climategate"??? Ha ha!
>
> the "science" and here you are denying science because it suits your
> argument.
No, because it IS.
> Your dominos are falling and there's nothing you can do to stop them,
> other than cry that the facts don't mean aanything.
All you ultraconservative k00ks are doing yet again is waving your
willing-ignorance as if it were some proud banner.
> If your "science" was so correct then there would be no reason to hide
> a damned thing. Your background in science? Yeah right. You might
> know enough to cook your crack on your kitchen stove but nothing more.
> You'rer too damned stupid to know that your little tree ring analysis
> has also been found to be fraudulent:
Once again, you scientifcally-illiterate fool, you are ASSSUMING that
"hide the decline" is meant in the way you *believe* it is, and not
what it really means in an *informal* scientific discussion.
It, of course, never occured to you, Postie, that even though you
fucking didn't understand what "trick" meant in "Mike's Nature trick",
that you did also did NOT have a clue what "hide the decline" meant in
that context.
You may be a willing idiot, but I am not. Once I understood that
"Mike's nature trick" was an valid adjustment to new results that
became different from past results (due to better equipmeant) then
"hide the decline" simply means "make a correction to the figures,
using "Mike's Nature trick", to more accurate reflect reality."
Ye gods, you are just so fucking STUPID, Postie. Like most Americans,
I am ashamed to say, you have not even a basic understanding of
science or the scientific method.
So, Postie, here is ONE BIG, FINAL CLUE FOR YOU -- and then I am
finished with your stupidity! If you want to live with your head up
your ass, just remember you are filling your mouth with shit.
The BIG Clue: Those emails were NOT written to you! Don't be so
fucking stupid to even *believe* you know what they mean.
Because clearly, as you have repeatedly proven now, you do not.
-Tom Sr.
Dave Heil
> You may be a willing idiot, but I am not.
I believe you. I don't believe you had any choice whatever. You are
abrasive and rude to others.
> Once I understood that
> "Mike's nature trick" was an valid adjustment to new results that
> became different from past results (due to better equipmeant) then
> "hide the decline" simply means "make a correction to the figures,
> using "Mike's Nature trick", to more accurate reflect reality."
Riiiiight. "Hide the decline" means to "make a correction." If my
banker writes, "hide the loss" and says that it means "make a
correction", I'm going to believe him too.
UsenetRanger
oz
> It has all been a questionable hypothesis, the need to hide methods and
> Fudge numbers is not SCIENCE. SCIENCE is open and provable....
Oz:----
Not for lying liberals. It does'nt conform to their basic instinct of
deception. That they're willing to economically destroy the country
based on nothing but lies shows what kind of devious fucks you're
dealing with.
SrRojo
"Acause Rush tell me it so!"--L'il Jak