Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed (Not Surprised)

[ReeferMadness]

So Exxon Mobil does deserve it, but people in Quebec don't. I remind you Exxon Mobil has shown more profit than any company on the face of this planet. Now I ask you a question, who's GD oil is it anyway. Did it get bequeathed to EM? If we harnessed one tenth of one percent of the solar energy that hits the earth every day, we would fulfill our energy requirements world wide. You must have shares in Exxon.

Oh, come on. The good folks at E/M are kind enough to come on in and hire a few local folks for a few years while they rape and pillage the land, leaving it polluted and poisonous for centuries to come. Of course that's a great deal.

You're just anti-progress. You want us all to go back to living in the jungle.

[ReeferMadness]

A propaganda piece based on a graph which is pure nonsense because the uptick at the end is nothing but statistical noise based one or two data points. And people wonder why skeptics think climate scientists are incompetent or dishonest.

Wow, Tim. We're all in awe of how only you have the special power to recognize the one wingnut scientist smart enough to understand the real situation while the thousands of others are all wrong. Way to go.

[TimG]

Wow, Tim. We're all in awe of how only you have the special power to recognize the one wingnut scientist smart enough to understand the real situation while the thousands of others are all wrong. Way to go.

The scientist in question has been forced to acknowledge his graph was grossly misleading if not wrong.

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments&_r=0#permid=146:1

Of course, that does fact does not stop pathetic alarmists from using the bogus graph for propaganda purposes whenever they can.

Edited January 10, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

The scientist in question has been forced to acknowledge his graph was grossly misleading if not wrong.

Horse apples.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments&_r=0#permid=146:1

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Of course, that does fact does not stop pathetic alarmists from using the bogus graph for propaganda purposes whenever they can.

Oh ferpetesake TimG, you're such a blatant propaganda spin doctor. Who pays you?

What don't you understand about

... is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Edited January 10, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

It helps if you read the context before posting a completely inane response. In this case, the graph was taken an misused by someone else who tried to draw conclusions based on the end of the graph. I quoted the author of the graph to show how the person (mis)using the graph is full of crap. Edited January 10, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Is this the poster boy for global warming? http://qz.com/154196/the-only-way-to-stop-climate-change-now-may-be-revolution/

A propaganda piece based on a graph which is pure nonsense because the uptick at the end is nothing but statistical noise based one or two data points. And people wonder why skeptics think climate scientists are incompetent or dishonest.

The scientist in question has been forced to acknowledge his graph was grossly misleading if not wrong.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments&_r=0#permid=146:1

Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Of course, that does fact does not stop pathetic alarmists from using the bogus graph for propaganda purposes whenever they can.

Horse apples. Oh ferpetesake TimG, you're such a blatant propaganda spin doctor. Who pays you?

What don't you understand about ... is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

It helps if you read the context before posting a completely inane response. In this case, the graph was taken an misused by someone else who tried to draw conclusions based on the end of the graph. I quoted the author of the graph to show how the person (mis)using the graph is full of crap.

ya ya, TimG! Talking about (your posts) full of crap!

you conveniently play fast & loose with the facts... the Marcott et al reconstruction is but one piece of that referenced graphic (the so-called "wheelchair"). Right on queue you throw down your parroted McIntyre denier idiocy with your claim that, as you said above, "The scientist in question has been forced to acknowledge his graph was grossly misleading if not wrong.". You certainly didn't need to quote from the NYT dotearth blog... the Marcott et al paper includes the same thing (at least a couple of times) in terms of the papers conclusions... that within the paper proper, given concerns over the robustness of the data/results associated with the 20th century, the conclusions of the paper were not founded on, did not rely upon, the 20th century part of the reconstruction. Of course, obviously, there's no need to rely upon the 20th century reconstruction as we have those interesting devices in play... thermometers!... and the instrumental record. Now, most certainly, if you come back posting in this same vein, I will quote directly from the paper to highlight/prove your charade.

but, of course, the charlatan McIntyre narrative gets mega denialsphere coverage, and as is your way, you parrot him, big time... this is perfect for the fake-skeptic "auditor"... his immediate response to the Marcott et al paper was to claim purposeful deceit/dishonesty by the scientists. It's what he's about... it's what he lives for... it's what you and his other minions carry forward! Of course it was quite humourous to read McIntyre's back-pedaling cya once he realized his own fail in misinterpreting/covering the paper.

you absolutely have no basis to critique the Marcott et al paper... even within the 20th century part of the reconstruction (which, again, isn't a part of the paper's conclusions concerning the Holocene), the proxy drop-out explanation that's subsequently come forward (independently from the authors), speaks to the/a reason for the sharp up-tick.

.