Search results

Works fine for those who don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. Those emails don't change the facts. The lower atmosphere is warming, mass loss from ice sheets is accelerating, sea levels are rising, timing of the seasons is happening sooner (along with concomitant phenology), and the upper...

Yeah...it's a transcript of something alright, but not a Senate hearing. A radio interview. Did you click on the link?

It's very simple why women don't like her as much as men. Women saw through Sarah Palin and we saw through her quickly. Men are literal and are more likely to say what they mean and mean what they say. Women are more nuanced and better able to persuade and manipulate others with their words. So...

Oh? Which Senate hearings?

I wonder if the conspiracists can contain their glee long enough to realize the irony involved in rummaging through illegally obtained personal communications in the process of looking for ethical breaches?

In the run-up to the meetings scheduled for December, a report has been produced by scientists which updates the material and findings since the cut-off date for the last IPCC report. That's three years worth of new findings. Results: Ice sheet mass loss accelerating, contributing to sea...

Rather than repeat myself addressing Walt's multiple cut and pastes on the same topic over multiple threads, I think I'll just link back to the post in the thread where he first brought this up. http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/73658-death-knell-agw-26.html#post1177334 The long...

It's no different than the 9/11 truthers pointing out things that were said by first responders at Ground Zero, and saying, AHA! See! One example, one of the more popular quotes is the one which refers to Mann's "trick". His trick is to plot observed surface temperatures with a proxy record...

You wish Walt. Taking private emails from a dozen or so scientists out of context doesn't change the radiation measurements, the temperature trends in the stratosphere, nor the realization of predictions made decades ago which have come to pass. The part about deleting records, I'm not sure...

Is calling a person a denier worse than calling them cultists and radicals Ron?

You could also say that he makes the signal harder to detect, by adding so much noise. :lol:

If you take the time to read those papers, you soon realize that the blogger who made that list doesn't actually read the studies that they posted. For instance, Shindell et al. (1999) doesn't support skepticism of the mainstream view of climate change at all. Abstract: Results from a global...

Only now we have a biodiversity crisis on top of that. In past climate changes, humans hadn't developed the agricultural systems we have with us today, and which civilization depends on. So if the future is unfriendly to the species, strains, cultivars, and breeds that we depend on, it's not so...

Statistics does not deal with proofs. You don't know what you're talking about.

The hypothesis is not arbitrary. The hypothesis is what the investigation is based on. The very reason that a result may be due to some uncontrollable or uncontrolled factor is why we use statistics. I'm a nice guy, so I'll give you one more chance to offer an alternative before I write you off.

I never said he is an idiot. If he is an example of someone who fits my premise, then he looks like an idiot. Someone needs to show bona fide evidence to me that they're an idiot before I call them one.

Absolutely not. Consider that scientists arrive at the same conclusions using different methods. The conclusions are called robust if they are validated by multiple appropriate methodologies. The appropriateness of any method depends on many factors. It's rare if ever that there is only one...

And the trend is still one of warming: What value is there in pointing at the last two points of this time series? None whatsoever. If someone pointed at 1912 and said, "Look at that temperature drop. The world must be entering a cooling phase", well then that person would look like an idiot...

Cherry picking precisely defined is using portions of data to confirm your position, while ignoring significant portions of data which if included in the analysis would contradict your position. So how does a regression, using all of the data, become cherry picking? You still haven't answered...