The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_ldsfaqs]

Okay, lying liar. Here's the actual e-mail: http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt Deming completely misrepresented what it said.

Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.

Mann was neither the author nor the recipient.

He didn't say he wanted to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. He wanted to deal a mortal blow to the assholes like Monckton and Heller and you who "misuse" myths like a global medieval warm period. Just like you do now. The medieval warm period was not global. That's what the actual science says. But you can't face up to the simple truth, and so you have to create wild conspiracies and falsely defame scientists whose only crime has been trying to figure out what's going on with the climate. Shame on you. Really.

LOL... YOu are the funniest most corrupt person on the planet.
You don't even know what you're referencing...

That "email" is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT EMAIL then the one Dr David Deming got.
Dr. Deming doesn't live and work in the UK and his name isn't Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk nor does he live/work in Norway or France you *****!
by the way, Dr. Deming to my knowledge has NEVER released the email he got.

You're referencing an entirely different email.
Wow, the utter willful blindness and lying is fascinating...

And by the way, the Global Medieval Warm Period is NOT a "myth"... Why you are just so gullible.
It's been established science for some 100 years, again from Ice Cores, Tree Rings, etc.
That's SCIENCE you ****! Some claimed **** "scientist" in 2009 entirely embarrassing that well-established science fact from various disciplines of science is the one that's engaging in MYTH.

[_Res Ipsa]

You're right. I relied on the proprietor of the worlds most popular denier blog, who linked the e-mail with Deming's testimony. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/ ... m-period/I should know better than to trust deniers.

Odd that Deming didn't identify who sent the e-mail or produce it. So that's the evidence of your grand conspiracy?

[_Res Ipsa]

And by the way, the Global Medieval Warm Period is NOT a "myth"... Why you are just so gullible.
It's been established science for some 100 years, again from Ice Cores, Tree Rings, etc.
That's SCIENCE you ****! Some claimed **** "scientist" in 2009 entirely embarrassing that well-established science fact from various disciplines of science is the one that's engaging in MYTH.

Okay, show me the evidence from 100 years ago that demonstrated a "global" medieval warming period. Show me the ice core and tree ring data.

Here's the abstract from a paper in July. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

Earth’s climate history is often understood by breaking it down into constituent climatic epochs1. Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 years) these epochs, such as the Little Ice Age2,3,4, have been characterized as having occurred at the same time across extensive spatial scales5. Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence6, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

Earlier conclusions about the MWP were not based on global data. Science isn't frozen at an arbitrary point in the past. Unless you want to give up stuff like the germ theory of disease or DNA. Scientists do the best they can at any given time based on the data they have. When there is new data, you go with the data. Your approach is to plug your ears and scream "fraud" when science reaches conclusions you don't like. That's not science. That's a tantrum.

[_canpakes]

They were ALL valid accept the one. All the valid ones referred to some "extreme cold" issue.

“The one” that you’re referring to as the only invalid example was the photoshopped cover. I had to point that one out to you, as clearly you were posting a cover that never existed.

But let’s look at the others individually. Start with this one, by explaining this problem for you that what was pointed out by Doc Steuss:

December 1973, “The Big Freeze.” This one is one of the best of the bunch, because the cover story isn’t even about weather. It’s about the 1973 oil crisis.

You have two choices: either show that part of the article that talks about ‘global cooling’, or just accept the fact that you’re a terrible, wife-punching, morally-deficient liar.

The choice is yours.

[_ldsfaqs]

You're right. I relied on the proprietor of the worlds most popular denier blog, who linked the e-mail with Deming's testimony. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/ ... m-period/I should know better than to trust deniers.

Odd that Deming didn't identify who sent the e-mail or produce it. So that's the evidence of your grand conspiracy?

LOL... You are just too funny.
1. That's not the most popular blog, in fact it's likely one of the least.
2. Weren't you the one who linked to this very same blog to prove one of YOUR points, that I then debunked? Or was that someone else, like within the last few days?
3. I don't know what they are doing on that page. They are for some reason mixing two vastly different emails as if they are the same.
4. The confusion seems to have been started by a "Robert" who looks like he's a Pro-AGW guy, because he claimed the quote was fraudulent, and then he gives them a different quote that was from one of the climate gate emails.

So, I don't know what's going on there, unless I'm missing something.

Anyway, let's not get distracted. Dr Deming is who we are talking about and who quotes the email HE got, and it was some 4 years before Michael Mann's fake hockey stick, again the FIRST person to create such a graph eliminating the Medieval Warm Period.

Clearly, you have no problem with fraud in science. Okay, then just admit it.
Science is science, I'm certainly not the one "denying" it, you are by denying the Medieval Warm Period.

by the way, I want to point out "why" would Dr. Deming "make up" a clear statement about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period, LONG before Michael Mann even published his hockey stick removing the period?
I mean, it wasn't an issue publically for some 4 years after Deming's testimony.

[_ldsfaqs]

My God, FAQs, you actually didn't read the blog post, did you? You keep contradicting the author.

Some people may wish to ignore the KR-16 database as being from a so-called “climate denier” blog. However, almost all of the papers in KR-16 are from peer-reviewed literature and consequently it is a valid database. It is also worth noting that 16 of the papers used in the KR-16 database are also contained in the PCF-08 database.

The combined PCF-08 and KR-16 databases form the benchmark database for the current review. It was intended to significantly extend the benchmark database but, on searching the relevant journals, only 2 additional papers were found and these were added to form the database for this review.

Nope. You didn't bother to read it at all.

LOL, you're the one who doesn't read for "comprehension"...

Let me BOLD the relevant point that debunks your claim.
In other words, yes it's true he combined the databases, but HE STILL DID HIS OWN SEARCH, which included additional NEW search terms, to make sure the information was accurate, which is HOW he could find "2 more papers to add".

Further, you ignore the fact that you claimed he "only added cooling papers".
That was a lie, because he added cooling papers, 38 more Neutral Papers, and two more Warming papers.

So, liar liar pants on fire.
1. He did his OWN search to verify the information, which debunks your claim he just combined the information and pretended things.
2. He didn't just add cooling papers as you claimed
3. All the data STILL proves that the original researchers both ignored cooling papers, ignored important journals, and didn't include useful search terms.

And you won't admit any of these clear facts, thus you support liars and conmen instead of the best, most current, and complete research.
It's just like the various "research" studies done for the 93% or 97% etc. consensus of climate scientists support catastrophic AGW claim.
Those studies are massive CON JOBS, the same kind of shoddy research, though in some cases even worse than your loved methodology of cherry-picking studies to support your claim that there was no global cooling consensus in the 70's!

[_canpakes]

faqs, who wrote the text in the court doc?

C’mon, don’t be a lying liary liar. Show us the proof that Mann wrote these words about himself. Not that it says anything about climate change conclusions regardless - I’m just trying to give you an opportunity to be right about something for once. Don’t blow your chance.

[Guest]

faqs, who wrote the text in the court doc?

C’mon, don’t be a lying liary liar. Show us the proof that Mann wrote these words about himself. Not that it says anything about climate change conclusions regardless - I’m just trying to give you an opportunity to be right about something for once. Don’t blow your chance.

LOL, they were HIS court docs... Just because his "lawyer" may have wrote it, doesn't mean he didn't review and approve it.
It's HIS Testimony... Do you know what "testimony" is?

Again, I show you you're wrong, yet again.

[_Res Ipsa]

You're right. I relied on the proprietor of the worlds most popular denier blog, who linked the e-mail with Deming's testimony. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/ ... m-period/I should know better than to trust deniers.

Odd that Deming didn't identify who sent the e-mail or produce it. So that's the evidence of your grand conspiracy?

LOL... You are just too funny.
1. That's not the most popular blog, in fact it's likely one of the least.
2. Weren't you the one who linked to this very same blog to prove one of YOUR points, that I then debunked? Or was that someone else, like within the last few days?
3. I don't know what they are doing on that page. They are for some reason mixing two vastly different emails as if they are the same.
4. The confusion seems to have been started by a "Robert" who looks like he's a Pro-AGW guy, because he claimed the quote was fraudulent, and then he gives them a different quote that was from one of the climate gate emails.

So, I don't know what's going on there, unless I'm missing something.

Anyway, let's not get distracted. Dr Deming is who we are talking about and who quotes the email HE got, and it was some 4 years before Michael Mann's fake hockey stick, again the FIRST person to create such a graph eliminating the Medieval Warm Period.

Clearly, you have no problem with fraud in science. Okay, then just admit it.
Science is science, I'm certainly not the one "denying" it, you are by denying the Medieval Warm Period.

by the way, I want to point out "why" would Dr. Deming "make up" a clear statement about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period, LONG before Michael Mann even published his hockey stick removing the period?
I mean, it wasn't an issue publically for some 4 years after Deming's testimony.

Frankly, the whole incident is confusing. Someone else tried to figure it out, but it just doesn't make sense. https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943 I think it's McIntyre who introduced the confusion by linking Deming with the e-mail, but it's really unclear.

But, as evidence of fraud, Deming's testimony is extremely weak as far as evidence goes. He testifies about an e-mail he received 10 years before from a major figure in climate science that said something pretty shocking, but he can't remember who and he doesn't have the e-mail. Frankly, I think he's misremembering. There simply isn't any evidence that Mann was involved. And there isn't any evidence that Mann fraudulently removed evidence of the MWP from his hockey stick paper. (Actually, I don't think the first paper in 1998 even covered the period of the MWP, but I'd have to double check.) If there was, you could easily prove the fraud by showing what he did. Not to mention the fact that there are lots of reconstructions now through the relevant time period, and they all look pretty similar. If you like conspiracy theories, the claim that scientists have all conspired to get rid of the MWP certainly sounds attractive, but where's the evidence? So far you've got a 10 year old recollection by a guy who can't remember who it was.

[_Res Ipsa]

faqs, who wrote the text in the court doc?

C’mon, don’t be a lying liary liar. Show us the proof that Mann wrote these words about himself. Not that it says anything about climate change conclusions regardless - I’m just trying to give you an opportunity to be right about something for once. Don’t blow your chance.

LOL, they were HIS court docs... Just because his "lawyer" may have wrote it, doesn't mean he didn't review and approve it.
It's HIS Testimony... Do you know what "testimony" is?

Again, I show you you're wrong, yet again.

FAQs, and just because his lawyer wrote it doesn't mean he did review and approve it. Not everything filed in a court is "testimony". If you post a link to it, we can all look at it and then we'll know.