Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[wyly]

You won't answer simple questions while offering up nonsense like this. So I say to you, "Keep the faith baby!"

you've contributed nothing here other than drive by quips....either your afraid to state your viewpoint because you can't understand the science or you're a troll...

[wyly]

It's too bad. There are only a few who are really interested in this topic here it seems.

no it's good, it's an indication that the denier/conspiracy world has nothing left

to offer...the debate CC/AGW is essentially over, whats being debated now is how quickly changes will occur, how severe will be the damage and what can be done to lessen the damage...

[TimG]

pffft! What have you ever... ever... debunked?

Pretty much anything I bother to argue with you.

It is good to see that the yahoos who called themselves climate scientists are getting slapped for their endless attempts to smear people who criticize their church:

http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/07/german-court-orders-stefan-rahmstorf-to-cease-and-desist-violating-journalists-personal-rights/

[waldo]

pffft! What have you ever... ever... debunked?

Pretty much anything I bother to argue with you.

you're absolutely deluded - you can't argue the science. If not for you regularly resorting to your McIntyre fanboy act, you're actually quite boring with nothing substantive to offer... you're certainly no challenge. Reading you continue to exalt the virtues of the never-ending sham auditor is gold, real gold!

uhhh... just a couple of recent post examples of you showcasing your supposed "debunking"... still waiting for your responses!

Just a few posts back in this thread, I requested you, "

Please feel free to make your case for an alternate causal forcing(s), inclusive of the W/m2 radiative forcing level(s) of your alternate source(s)

". You've received like challenges in the past. I expect you will ignore this latest one, just as you've ignored all the others.

could you be any more evasive and non-specific? What's the atmospheric 'lifetime' of black carbon versus CO2? Rather than an all encompassing google scholar drop, why not pick your study and associated black carbon radiative forcing number... you know, the one you feel actually overrides what you, without any supporting qualification, state as the IPCC "

significant play down of black carbon

".

It is good to see that the yahoos who called themselves climate scientists are getting slapped for their endless attempts to smear people who criticize their church:

church? A few posts back you trotted out the religious fanaticism label... are you truly that bereft of anything remotely intelligent to say, that you must resort to barking zealotry?

Edited December 2, 2011 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

no it's good, it's an indication that the denier/conspiracy world has nothing left

to offer...the debate CC/AGW is essentially over, whats being debated now is how quickly changes will occur, how severe will be the damage and what can be done to lessen the damage...

And yet Waldo has just posted an admiration for good skepticism.

Let's have some, I say ! It would at least mix up the discussion a little.

[TimG]

you're absolutely deluded - you can't argue the science.

What is the point of arguing the science with a fanatical whack job like you?

The debate over Tiljander really demonstrated how clueless you are. Anyone with even a basic understanding of science would have looked at that data in the Tiljander paper and concluded that Mann screwed up. But not you. You hung your entire argument on Mann's magical algorithms that you don't understand but you are sure they can turn can turn BS into gold. Pure nonsense. It is too bad that people like Micheal are bamboozled by your nonsense.

In any case, go and spout your reams of meaningless verbiage. I will engage posters that are actually engage their mind instead of parroting talking points they do not understand.

[wyly]

And yet Waldo has just posted an admiration for good skepticism.

Let's have some, I say ! It would at least mix up the discussion a little.

i'm all for heated discussion but the last good skepticism has evaporated, the best have shot their load and haven't put a dent in CC/AGW, the evidence has become overwhelming...the only skeptics left are the bottom of the barrel; paid shills, pseudo scientists trying to make a buck doing lectures and book sales, conspiracy kooks and uneducated imbeciles who think they understand the science.....

[GostHacked]

Anyone want to buy some Carbon Credits? I got some to sell!!

[waldo]

What is the point of arguing the science with a fanatical whack job like you?

The debate over Tiljander really demonstrated how clueless you are.

fanatical whack job? Getting a bit testy there, hey Timmay?

if nothing else, that Tiljander proxy related exchange reinforced your fake skepticism and firmly established you as its MLW poster-boy. To me, the epitome of your blustering and flustering had you declaring the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source", while repeatedly doing your best Anthony Watts "analysis by 2D picture" impression... hilarious... gold, real gold! What was even sweeter was to keep quoting you Tiljander's own words within her paper; where she states, "However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated." Clearly, Tiljander's own words were the stinging counter to your suggestion that she had indicated the proxy shouldn't be used.

clearly a close second was your bumbling over equilibrium versus transient sensitivity... or maybe your stumbling in discussing SRES and your claimed "BAU" scenario... or maybe your absolute inability/unwillingness to engage in radiative forcing related discussion (an example no fresher than can be seen just a few short posts back within this very thread). I could go on and on - MLW search is just a few clicks away! Ultimately, you keep ignoring the repeated, ongoing challenges requesting you to make a case for an alternative causal link, one other than CO2. You keep ignoring those repeated challenges/requests... now, that, is truly what being a fake skeptic is all about - skepticism for denial's sake!

[waldo]

you've contributed nothing here other than drive by quips....either your afraid to state your viewpoint because you can't understand the science or you're a troll...

I'm not piling on here, as this is a convenient summation point. The false skeptic drive-by is emblematic. Nothing else quite personifies an unwillingness... and most likely... an inability, to engage the discussion. In another concurrently running thread we see an extended variant wrinkle on the classic drive-by pattern, one where the false skeptic has actually slowed the main drive-by down a bit, if only to numbingly formalize and make repeated statements refusing to engage.

[waldo]

i'm all for heated discussion but the last good skepticism has evaporated, the best have shot their load and haven't put a dent in CC/AGW, the evidence has become overwhelming...the only skeptics left are the bottom of the barrel; paid shills, pseudo scientists trying to make a buck doing lectures and book sales, conspiracy kooks and uneducated imbeciles who think they understand the science.....

yup... the only real concern is just how must distraction and delay these false skeptics/pseudo scientists might be able to cause, particularly given the political hack interference and the significant lobbying/financial meddling from industry fronts and lobbyists.

[Michael Hardner]

yup... the only real concern is just how must distraction and delay these false skeptics/pseudo scientists might be able to cause, particularly given the political hack interference and the significant lobbying/financial meddling from industry fronts and lobbyists.

Then why not take up my challenge and put on a skeptic's hat for awhile ?

It could be fun and edifying... especially for me.

[sharkman]

What is the point of arguing the science with a fanatical whack job like you?

The debate over Tiljander really demonstrated how clueless you are. Anyone with even a basic understanding of science would have looked at that data in the Tiljander paper and concluded that Mann screwed up. But not you. You hung your entire argument on Mann's magical algorithms that you don't understand but you are sure they can turn can turn BS into gold. Pure nonsense. It is too bad that people like Micheal are bamboozled by your nonsense.

In any case, go and spout your reams of meaningless verbiage. I will engage posters that are actually engage their mind instead of parroting talking points they do not understand.

Tim, do you see what I mean about arguing subject matter that is a religion to others? There is simply no benefit, they won't for a minute consider anything that threatens their religion. And why waste your time with the likes of these? The only hope is that reasonable open minded people will consider your points and be the better for it. But in matters of Global Warming etc, they are shouted down by the fanatics.

[TimG]

To me, the epitome of your blustering and flustering had you declaring the proxy author's paper as the "authoritative source", while repeatedly doing your best Anthony Watts "analysis by 2D picture" impression...

Go ahead pat yourself on your back for being an idiot screaming that 2 + 2 = 5. People who actually understand this stuff just laugh at you and shake their heads. Personally I think it is kind of sad.

The bottom line is the data matters and when you look at the data and apply some basic data analysis it becomes clear that this data cannot be used in the way Mann did. Your attempts to dismiss this reality by making irrelevant comparisons to Watts exposes you for what you are: a fanatical propagandist that has no interest in the science.

Edited December 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The bottom line is the data matters and when you look at the data and apply some basic data analysis it becomes clear that this data cannot be used in the way Mann did.

except... not once would you go there. Not once when I repeatedly, over and over and over again, challenged you to directly discuss the Mann08/09 methodology, the selection aspects, the screening process, the algorithm itself, the calibration process, the validation process, the testing, etc.... not once, would you engage. Instead... you meekly retreated back to playing the clown presuming to "analyze" via a 2D graphic image within the Tiljander paper. You now puff-up and allude to, as you say, "data matters, data analysis"..... clearly, the scope of your interest/focus on data/analysis has nothing to do with actual data, actual data analysis. Clearly, to you... data/data analysis is limited to offering unsubstantiated summary conclusion based on a 2D graphic image... nothing more, nothing less. And yes, Anthony Watts would be so proud of you!

[waldo]

Then why not take up my challenge and put on a skeptic's hat for awhile ?

It could be fun and edifying... especially for me.

look no further than my OP; that opening post suggests exactly what a real skeptic would do with the ridiculous link/comment put forward by MLW member lukin. Of course, a real skeptic shouldn't give that linked article's author (Tim Ball) any real consideration... in actuality, Ball simply ran with the purposeful disinformation that John Sullivan kicked off into the denialsphere. Notwithstanding both Ball and Sullivan are renowned charlatans and hucksters, in the latter half of my OP I proceeded to provide an appropriate interpretation of the associated paper..... that's what a real skeptic would do.

most noteworthy on MLW is that none of the usual suspects, as I recall, has ever challenged and pushed back on something put forward by one of their fake skeptic brothers... no matter how ridiculous, how blatantly false, how purposely distracting or misinformed. That is most certainly why there are no real skeptics within that bunch.

[waldo]

And why waste your time with the likes of these? The only hope is that reasonable open minded people will consider your points and be the better for it. But in matters of Global Warming etc, they are shouted down by the fanatics.

you most certainly have not been shouted down... you have been repeatedly asked/encouraged to state your position on CC/AGW - you refuse. Instead you seek solace in the ways of the drive-by! Why not actually step out of the shadows... be more than a drive-by proponent - make a case for your (fake) skepticism. This is your opportunity; this is your platform. Go for it... sure you can!

[TimG]

Not once when I repeatedly, over and over and over again, challenged you to directly discuss the Mann08/09 methodology, the selection aspects, the screening process, the algorithm itself, the calibration process, the validation process, the testing, etc

I did. Many times. You simply ignored it because you always ignore arguments that you can't refute.

To summarize: Mann is using regression over the last 100 years to select and then calibrate the data. The contamination in the last 100 years means that Mann's algorithm will choose to orient the proxy in a way that is opposite of what the physics of the proxy demands (i.e. he used it upside down). There is nothing that Mann could possibility do to 'correct' for this problem. This is not CSI where low resolution images can be turned into hi-def photos by applying the "right" algoritms. The information content is simply not there.

Edited December 3, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

you most certainly have not been shouted down... you have been repeatedly asked/encouraged to state your position on CC/AGW - you refuse. Instead you seek solace in the ways of the drive-by! Why not actually step out of the shadows... be more than a drive-by proponent - make a case for your (fake) skepticism. This is your opportunity; this is your platform. Go for it... sure you can!

he's only trying to save face by pretending to take the higher moral road claiming you're the one who's unreasonable...my father used to do it all the time when had no answer or was in over his head...

[TimG]

he's only trying to save face by pretending to take the higher moral road claiming you're the one who's unreasonable...my father used to do it all the time when had no answer or was in over his head...

Why don't you learn how to do numerical regression on noisy datasets? Once you do that your opinion on this topic might be worth something. Until then your are just another alarmist that repeats talking points you don't understand. Edited December 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The information content is simply not there.

per your character flaw, you go off an a tangent whenever your position becomes untenable... in this case, you've rushed to distract away from this threads most recent challenges that you refuse to take-up. Clearly, you don't take well to being asked, once again, to qualify your 'other than CO2 causal ties'; equally, when you puff-up with references attempting to overplay the significance of black carbon & land use, you should expect to be called on it.

as much as it showcases your skeptical failings, I have no intention of continuing to feed your distraction by, once again, enabling you to jack another thread with your McIntyre parroting obsession. Most certainly, I've already stated everything needed in discussing your latest shilling efforts for your hero McIntyre's, 'false controversy for controversy's sake'... see here, and here.

however, I have chosen to quote and comment on the last sentence of your latest reply. Throughout your stupefying obsessive display, not once did you offer a formalized published response/refutation from McIntyre, one that could actually speak to the quality of the climate signal within the Tiljander proxy; its, as you say, 'information content'. Of course you didn't - because one doesn't exist'; and it doesn't exist, because that would mean McIntyre would actually have to endure the rigor of peer-review/response... obviously, that doesn't fit within the never-ending "auditor's" sham - does it?

[waldo]

he's only trying to save face by pretending to take the higher moral road claiming you're the one who's unreasonable...my father used to do it all the time when had no answer or was in over his head...

and yet... the sharkman drive-by's continue... unabated, unabashed, wholly transparent. All the while, repeated benign requests asking him to state a position on CC/AGW are ignored. On the positive side though, he presents an ongoing pattern/response that is quite fitting to the main intent/theme of this thread!

[TimG]

...usual waldo crap....

Lots verbiage - no content. The point I made is quite simple: there is no information content in the data that would allow it to be calibrated. Nothing you said or linked actually addresses that simple point. Instead of actually addressing that point you start whining about McIntrye who has nothing to do with anything I said.

This is why I don't bother to engage you. You refuse to stay on topic and constantly derail any discussion with irrelevant side tracks. If you want me to respond you must actually address my point clearly without irrelevant side bars.

Edited December 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

This is why I don't bother to engage you.

heelarious! For someone who "doesn't engage" me, you sure seem preoccupied... with me! I drop a post late afternoon and head off for some shopping and brews with the boys..... come back and throw down another post and immediately up you pop! Your unwillingness to engage is intense! (show me the formal McIntyre paper that refutes the Mann, et al paper's calibration method/results... oh wait... is there a problem? )

[Keepitsimple]

Go ahead pat yourself on your back for being an idiot screaming that 2 + 2 = 5. People who actually understand this stuff just laugh at you and shake their heads. Personally I think it is kind of sad.

The bottom line is the data matters and when you look at the data and apply some basic data analysis it becomes clear that this data cannot be used in the way Mann did. Your attempts to dismiss this reality by making irrelevant comparisons to Watts exposes you for what you are: a fanatical propagandist that has no interest in the science.

Yep. I think that about sums it up. When you have 100% belief in something as tenuous as the theory that humans are the driving force behind Climate Change......well, that really is religion....and yes, quite sad.