Climate Change Dishonesty

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
....you will discover that they are almost ALL pro-AGW....

Wake wrote:
If you look about for climate change forums you will discover that they are almost ALL pro-AGW and that they will not honestly discuss any other possibility. Many sites have forbidden "deniers" completely so that all they do is sit about and tell us how they just flew to Europe and attended meetings that proved beyond all doubt that we are all doomed. They took limo's to and from the airports and stayed in the most expensive energy intensive hotels possible.

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

I'm not sure who you mean by climate alarmists, but I see a lot of closed minded AGW deniers who, for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the obvious fact that increasing the concentration of IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to rise. This really is on a par with flat-Earthism.

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not sure who you mean by climate alarmists,

but I see a lot of closed minded AGW deniers

who, for whatever reason,

simply refuse to accept the obvious fact that increasing the concentration of IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to rise.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: The gig is over and our numbers are......

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

"frenziedmex" flopped:Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?

Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?

Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history and geography too.

Greek sailors rarely left sight of land because they had no instruments to tell where they were. It wasn't until Hipparchus invented the astrolabe that sailors ventured further afield. Do you know nothing of the Mediterranean Sea?

You get more stupid with every posting. Every day in every way you show that you haven't a clue about the world around you but want to be seen as some sort of expert.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

[I didn't say geologists discovered or postulated round earth, I said they accepted it.]

Before that, a number of cultures (like the Hebrews who wrote the old testament texts) believed the Mesopotamian religious myth that the earth was flat disc with a dome over it.

It's also a myth that people believed the earth was flat at the time of Christopher Columbus. Look up the 'flat earth myth'

As for plate tectonics, it was accepted by scientists because of all the evidence.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that scientists have been investigating all the forcings and feedbacks for decades and even earlier. There is a wealth of research going back almost 200 years. It all has to make physical sense with ALL the evidence and observations as well as the earth's paleoclimate and the laws of physics.

Which is why scientists can confidently say that CO2 is the main driver of climate change since the pre-industrial era (and has been the biggest driver throughout the earth's history). This all works together in conjunction with orbital forcing from the Milankovich cycles changing NH insolation and initiating deglaciation, the carbon cycle, aerosols, albedo changes and water vapour feedback etc.

What is it that you insist climate scientists 'open their mind to' that they haven't researched already?

Seriously, it's like none of you climate science rejectors have ever read a textbook let alone all the IPCC WG1 reports on the scientific basis or any of the published literature. You yourself apparently don't even know what scientists have already researched, or know much about the evidence, or the laws of physics or how it all fits together with other fields of science other than climate science.

If you are truly interested in understanding the science, you'd be spending your time learning, not posting contrarian politically motivated scientifically uneducated posts on little forums like this. There are so many good educational science-based, evidence-based resources online.

As a good place to start, you could try Professor Spencer Weart's textbook published by Harvard University Press: "The Discovery of Global Warming" and the free online version on the American Institute of Physics website. It discusses the history of the science involved from the 18th century to 21st century and provides links to all the main research papers.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Why not 'open your mind' and read all the Working Group 1 reports on the scientific basis from the IPCC. All of the questions I've seen you ask have been answered/addressed in those reports, which strongly tells me you haven't read any of them.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml


Or at least read the science summaries on the websites of main science organizations like the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good overview of the science on it's website:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

If you don't want to read, there are plenty of university or science conference lectures available:

eg

Professor Richard Alley has some easy to understand lectures on earth's climate history from the the AGU 2009 conference and National Academies of Science 2015 symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2 -Natonal Academy of Science 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" American Geophysical Union conference 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&t=68s

Professor David Archer from University of Chicago has a whole series of University lectures on atmospheric physics available freely online:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

I've also read a lot of the 'contrarian' claims on blogs/tabloids/industry 'think tanks' for about 10 years now. I've spent time investigating and fact-checking the claims for myself by reading the literature, and invariably found the claims to be misrepresenting science, demonstrably false, pseudoscience nonsense, or just patently ridiculous evidence free conspiracy theories.

So who has the open minds? Do you think it's laypeople who refuse to actually learn about the science and go straight to mindlessly parroting nonsense from junkscience conspiracy blogs and tabloid media?

If you haven't even bothered to learn what the science is and what scientists have already researched or what all the evidence is, but you reject the science anyway or claim scientists don't have 'open minds', how can YOU claim to have an 'open mind'?

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:
It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

My God but you're a fool. Because philosophers WROTE it at that time doesn't mean that every ship's captain didn't know that for centuries before. Do you suppose watching landfall rising up over the horizon would have been a clue or do you think that the entire world is as foolish as you are?

Are you really as Dim as you Sim?

You're clueless about science AND ancient history and geography too.

Greek sailors rarely left sight of land because they had no instruments to tell where they were. It wasn't until Hipparchus invented the astrolabe that sailors ventured further afield. Do you know nothing of the Mediterranean Sea?

You get more stupid with every posting. Every day in every way you show that you haven't a clue about the world around you but want to be seen as some sort of expert.

I'm no expert and have never claimed to be. It's just that you are so goddamned moronic, ridiculous and arrogantly ignorant, that anyone else looks like a freakin' MENSA genius compared to you.

What's funny, is that everything you accuse others of, is just you projecting your own flaws and behaviour.

Frescomexico wrote: I am not necessarily a permanent contrarian, but it will more than a predominance of studies in one direction to convert me.

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.

So please tell us your 'expert' opinion on "when the earth was first determined to be round".

You've already shown you didn't know anything about ancient sailors before the invention of the astrolabe for navigation in the 2nd century BC


This pic below was the view of the ancient Hebrews (flat disc with a dome over it) and was fairly typical of the type of views many ancient cultures had until the Greeks around 600 BC first postulated the earth to be spherical. Although it wasn't until the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth- and he was pretty close too.

Frescomexico wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

It wasn't 'geologists'. It was Greek philosophers around 600 BC who apparently first postulated that the earth was spherical and Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC who calculated the earth's circumference.

[I didn't say geologists discovered or postulated round earth, I said they accepted it.]

Before that, a number of cultures (like the Hebrews who wrote the old testament texts) believed the Mesopotamian religious myth that the earth was flat disc with a dome over it.

It's also a myth that people believed the earth was flat at the time of Christopher Columbus. Look up the 'flat earth myth'

As for plate tectonics, it was accepted by scientists because of all the evidence.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that scientists have been investigating all the forcings and feedbacks for decades and even earlier. There is a wealth of research going back almost 200 years. It all has to make physical sense with ALL the evidence and observations as well as the earth's paleoclimate and the laws of physics.

Which is why scientists can confidently say that CO2 is the main driver of climate change since the pre-industrial era (and has been the biggest driver throughout the earth's history). This all works together in conjunction with orbital forcing from the Milankovich cycles changing NH insolation and initiating deglaciation, the carbon cycle, aerosols, albedo changes and water vapour feedback etc.

What is it that you insist climate scientists 'open their mind to' that they haven't researched already?

Seriously, it's like none of you climate science rejectors have ever read a textbook let alone all the IPCC WG1 reports on the scientific basis or any of the published literature. You yourself apparently don't even know what scientists have already researched, or know much about the evidence, or the laws of physics or how it all fits together with other fields of science other than climate science.

If you are truly interested in understanding the science, you'd be spending your time learning, not posting contrarian politically motivated scientifically uneducated posts on little forums like this. There are so many good educational science-based, evidence-based resources online.

As a good place to start, you could try Professor Spencer Weart's textbook published by Harvard University Press: "The Discovery of Global Warming" and the free online version on the American Institute of Physics website. It discusses the history of the science involved from the 18th century to 21st century and provides links to all the main research papers.

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Why not 'open your mind' and read all the Working Group 1 reports on the scientific basis from the IPCC. All of the questions I've seen you ask have been answered/addressed in those reports, which strongly tells me you haven't read any of them.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml


Or at least read the science summaries on the websites of main science organizations like the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good overview of the science on it's website:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

If you don't want to read, there are plenty of university or science conference lectures available:

eg

Professor Richard Alley has some easy to understand lectures on earth's climate history from the the AGU 2009 conference and National Academies of Science 2015 symposium.

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2 -Natonal Academy of Science 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" American Geophysical Union conference 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&t=68s

Professor David Archer from University of Chicago has a whole series of University lectures on atmospheric physics available freely online:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

I've also read a lot of the 'contrarian' claims on blogs/tabloids/industry 'think tanks' for about 10 years now. I've spent time investigating and fact-checking the claims for myself by reading the literature, and invariably found the claims to be misrepresenting science, demonstrably false, pseudoscience nonsense, or just patently ridiculous evidence free conspiracy theories.

So who has the open minds? Do you think it's laypeople who refuse to actually learn about the science and go straight to mindlessly parroting nonsense from junkscience conspiracy blogs and tabloid media?

If you haven't even bothered to learn what the science is and what scientists have already researched or what all the evidence is, but you reject the science anyway or claim scientists don't have 'open minds', how can YOU claim to have an 'open mind'?

I want to say that I appreciate your enlightening me on the evidence of positive feedback. I can tell you how I became what you call a contrarian. It started with Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State submitting a peer reviewed paper that gave rise to the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC to show, among other things that there was no mideaval warm period nor little ice age and that temperatures have spiked since man-made CO2 began increasing. This paper was successfully contested by Steve McIntyre. However, it is not the fact that it was debunked that intrigued me, but the fact that Dr. Mann felt it was necessary to get rid of the mideaval warm period to make our present warming appear more ominous. These coupled with the climate-gate emails set me off on this "contrarian" course. Why cannot these scientists let the scientific cards fall as they may? The other factor in this scenario is that most climate research is funded by governments who are inclined to fund only research pointed in their political direction. Until the present administration, that direction has been towards high positive feedback. If you read the IPCCs mission statement you will see that they were set up to prove anthropological global warming, not to investigate all causes of climate change.

I am not necessarily a permanent contrarian, but it will more than a predominance of studies in one direction to convert me.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Long after geologists accepted that the earth is round they opened their minds to accept plate tectonics. Why can't climate alarmists open their minds?

The flat-earthists are the people like a surface detail on a spot on a cist on Chief Limpwrists face. No doubt a cancer upon the face of humanity.

They probably don't even know when the earth was first determined to be round. They certainly proved themselves to be utter fools that believe that there were anything other than a tiny group that ever thought the Earth was flat. The only question was it's diameter.

So please tell us your 'expert' opinion on "when the earth was first determined to be round".

You've already shown you didn't know anything about ancient sailors before the invention of the astrolabe for navigation in the 2nd century BC


This pic below was the view of the ancient Hebrews (flat disc with a dome over it) and was fairly typical of the type of views many ancient cultures had until the Greeks around 600 BC first postulated the earth to be spherical. Although it wasn't until the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth- and he was pretty close too.

Is it your contention that the ancient Greeks didn't navigate to England and back? Or are you saying that sailing wasn't possible until the invention of the Astrolabe?

All of this would be well and fine unless you've EVER done any mountain climbing around the oceans. All you have to do is climb, say Mt. Tamalpais and you can watch the Farallon Islands rise up out of the ocean. You could have no other explanation.

This is the same as watching for destinations from the masthead.

You obviously have never been a sailor and so this probably seems like some sort of myth to you. But until you actually see it you know without a doubt that there was never any question about the shape of the Earth to a sailor.

The question is,with so little knowledge about these things why would you argue about them?

Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.

Frescomexico wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?

Frescomexico wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?

Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

Quite true. Ceist favors this particular type of Link War. He doesn't understand that any idiot can write a paper and even get it published.

Because he can't think for himself, he cannot see what is wrong with an argument presented in any paper. To him, they are like Scriptures from God.

To watch the four horse's asses of the apocalypse flailing around without a though of their own is pretty rediculous. Surface defect doesn't even know what the definition of "calculus" is. He can only assume that it's what he's been doing in school.

Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.

Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.

Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting

Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.

Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting

Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.

This is even better - you aren't even smart enough to look it up in the Websters Dictionary. But as an ass you are even funnier where you would grab one of several definitions in order to PROVE your point. And then pretend that there is no other definition. But guess what? You've only proven yourself to be even more stupid that most people assumed from your postings.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Ceist,
I am impressed by your 10 years of studying climate papers. I guess that, if Mann's hockey stick paper was not successfully debunked, it remains proven that there was no Little Ice Age nor mideaval warm period. Because the handle of the hockey stick is just about horizontal for a thousand years before shooting skyward on the blade when mankind started contributing large amounts of CO2. Come on, who has the blinders on now?

No-one is saying that there was no "Little Ice Age"or MWP-they were regionally based, not global. The 'LIA' and 'MWP' came mostly came from anecdotal notes in historical documents and Lamb's 1965 hand-drawn sketch of temperature history in Central England.

This is really basic stuff and not difficult to fact-check. But you won't find the facts on conspiracy blogs. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the vikings grew grapes in Greenland, or that Greenland was called Greenland because it was green. Or you'll tell me some conspiracy blog has a list of papers supposedly showing that the LIA and MWP were global, when even a cursory check shows the papers don't show that at all.

You obviously haven't even read Mann and Bradley's original 1998 paper (the graph was NOT horizontal for a thousand years and the error bars were quite large), or any other papers, or any science on this topic, or made any effort to fact-check, so I'd say it's you who has the blinders on.

If you can't be bothered to take the time and effort to learn, that's fine. Continue posting silly pseudoscience/conspiracy comments on little obscure forums like this.

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming
Date:
November 19, 2014
Source:
University of Gloucestershire
Summary:
Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

Regional eh?

Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Be careful you aren't dragged into this "citation" game. That is the sign of a subpar student. The entire idea behind science is to have your own informed theories. Only by having many opinions can you have any advancement in science and the True Believers can only think in lock step with one another.

Don't get drawn into a citation game, never show how you know you know something and instead go with gut feelings and if challenged just double down on your assertions. Never draw conclusions from what is observed in nature and commonly held to be true. Throw in some random unfounded insults about your opponents sexual preferences and then you will be valued member of the climate debate community.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
You claimed this paper uses calculus:

http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

It doesn't. You are an idiot.

Definition of calculus
plural calculiplay \-ˌlī, -ˌlē\ also calculuses
1
a : a method of computation or calculation in a special notation (as of logic or symbolic logic)

You could teach stupid lessons to a snail.

Calculiplay? Really? Looks like someone messed up his cutting and pasting

Two points:
1) I don't see any special notation in that paper. It looks like straightforward arithmetic to me. Not that it makes much sense, though.

2) You missed out the second, more specific, part of the definition:
b : the mathematical methods comprising differential and integral calculus
which is what any physicist or mathematician is invariably referring to when talking of calculus.

If you claim a paper contains calculus, then you are implying that it contains integral or differential equations. See Calculus.

This is even better - you aren't even smart enough to look it up in the Websters Dictionary. But as an ass you are even funnier where you would grab one of several definitions in order to PROVE your point. And then pretend that there is no other definition. But guess what? You've only proven yourself to be even more stupid that most people assumed from your postings.

You are being ridiculous. You are aware, I take it, that words have different meanings in different contexts? If I said that 123 is a 3-digit number, would you assume I meant digit as in finger? Of course not.

Similarly, calculus has a very definite meaning in maths and science: it means the branch of maths dealing with rates of change, i.e. differentiation and integration. Laypeople may use the term to mean "tricky maths", but nobody with an education would refer to a scientific paper as containing calculus if it didn't contain differential or integral equations.