Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #405 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:44pm

“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin.

In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340:
The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.

Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341:

I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published.

His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #406 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin.

In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340:
The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.

Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341:

I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published.

His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Mark Steyn? Really? You've got to be kidding. He's certainly not a scientist and is just a media hack after starting life as a disc jockey. Not a scientist; not a mathematician; not a climatologist!

Mark Steyn is a schtickologist.

Mark Steyn's the leader of the AGW skeptics idolized by Ozpolitic denizens Maria Costel and lee. Grin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
Quote:

Steyn left school in 1978 at age 18 and worked as a disc jockey before becoming musical theatre critic at the newly established The Independent in 1986.[8] He was appointed film critic for The Spectator in 1992. After writing predominantly about the arts, Steyn shifted his focus to political commentary and wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph, a conservative broadsheet, until 2006.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #407 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:22pm

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin.

In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340:
The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.

Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341:

I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published.

His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Mark Steyn? Really? You've got to be kidding. He's certainly not a scientist and is just a media hack after starting life as a disc jockey. Not a scientist; not a mathematician; not a climatologist!

Mark Steyn is a schtickologist.

Mark Steyn's the leader of the AGW skeptics idolized by Ozpolitic denizens Maria Costel and lee. Grin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
Quote:

Steyn left school in 1978 at age 18 and worked as a disc jockey before becoming musical theatre critic at the newly established The Independent in 1986.[8] He was appointed film critic for The Spectator in 1992. After writing predominantly about the arts, Steyn shifted his focus to political commentary and wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph, a conservative broadsheet, until 2006.

The person who wrote it UNHINGED is PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Now criticise him instead. I dare you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #408 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:28pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin.

In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340:
The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.

Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341:

I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published.

His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Mark Steyn? Really? You've got to be kidding. He's certainly not a scientist and is just a media hack after starting life as a disc jockey. Not a scientist; not a mathematician; not a climatologist!

Mark Steyn is a schtickologist.

Mark Steyn's the leader of the AGW skeptics idolized by Ozpolitic denizens Maria Costel and lee. Grin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
Quote:

Steyn left school in 1978 at age 18 and worked as a disc jockey before becoming musical theatre critic at the newly established The Independent in 1986.[8] He was appointed film critic for The Spectator in 1992. After writing predominantly about the arts, Steyn shifted his focus to political commentary and wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph, a conservative broadsheet, until 2006.

The person who wrote it UNHINGED is PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Now criticise him instead. I dare you.

Does he use the alias Mark Steyn? Grin

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #409 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:35pm

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin.

In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340:
The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.

Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341:

I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published.

His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.

Mark Steyn? Really? You've got to be kidding. He's certainly not a scientist and is just a media hack after starting life as a disc jockey. Not a scientist; not a mathematician; not a climatologist!

Mark Steyn is a schtickologist.

Mark Steyn's the leader of the AGW skeptics idolized by Ozpolitic denizens Maria Costel and lee. Grin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
Quote:

Steyn left school in 1978 at age 18 and worked as a disc jockey before becoming musical theatre critic at the newly established The Independent in 1986.[8] He was appointed film critic for The Spectator in 1992. After writing predominantly about the arts, Steyn shifted his focus to political commentary and wrote a column for The Daily Telegraph, a conservative broadsheet, until 2006.

The person who wrote it UNHINGED is PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Now criticise him instead. I dare you.

Does he use the alias Mark Steyn? Grin

Try reading the article or get someone to do it for you. Steyns book is a collection of essays by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS. Clearly this concept eludes you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven Gold Member Offline I have sinned Posts: 8879 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #410 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:09pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Steyns book is a collection of essays by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS. Scientists like Mark Steyn?
Back to top	“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #411 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:24pm

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 3:12pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:23pm:

lee wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

I quoted facts about AGW hitting real men on the land. No counterargument was offered.

You quoted facts (presumably), about Climate Change not AGW. The climate changes, now show AGW.

You will confuse him with such a distinction.

And Imafairy2 (great name!) has refused to answer if he still believes in the Hockey Stick - that worst example of fraudulent science in 100 years.

You didnt even ask that. I got no problem with answering that question. Of course I believe in the Hockey stick. What fool doesnt?

Lets see how many lies Longy can pack into one and a half lines

almost no one in climate science believes in that fraud any more.

Total lie

IPCC has dumped it

Lie

and the book that was linked to earlier shows comments from 100 eminent climate scientists

Lie

from both sides of the debate stating that it is at best bad science

Lie

and a lot say it is utter fraud . AND THEY ARE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE.

Lie

For anyone who wants to know the true state of the Hockey Stick contention (which is as strongly influential in real scientific circles as ever)you can start with this Wikipedia article (and no fossil fuel $$$ was taken in preparing this true account of the current state of play on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

You might have more success with your claims of 'lie' if you actually produced any evidence. The IPCC no longer uses the graph at all in any of in any of its reports or materials. And you dont know why?

Read the wikipedia article.You make up facts. It doesn't. Anyone who wants to inform themselves of this highly influential assessment of the sudden heating of the worlds climate couldn't commence with a better start then wikipedia. Its doesn't take fossil fuel $$$$ like the snake oil sites you and Lee like to cut and paste from.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17322
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #412 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:27pm

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Scientists like Mark Steyn?

Mark Steyn is being sued by Michael Mann. One of Mann's favourite tricks to force people not to try to discredit him. Steyn has counter-sued Mann, which means Mann cannot just drop the case, another favourite ploy, he is being sued for millions.

Mark Steyn has never claimed to be a scientist, unlike M Mann, who doesn't use the scientific method. He has also not falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner like M Mann. And yet you prefer M Mann?

That truly shows your lack of knowledge.

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6913	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #413 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:28pm ...
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17322 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #414 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:29pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:24pm: You make up facts You do know wiki is able to be edited by anybody, even you. Don't you?
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #415 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm

lee wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:29pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

You make up facts

You do know wiki is able to be edited by anybody, even you. Don't you?

And constantly reviewed for accuracy. Not l;ike the crap you quote from and make no attempot to justify. So why not try and justify it now.

Tell us why it doesn't bother you that every argument you have posted here and most everything you cut and paste originates from sites sponsored and contributed to by the fossil fuel industry esp the Koch brothers.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17322
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #416 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Oh lookie. This professor of geology doesn't agree with the climate scientists on climate science.

Which once again shows your lack of knowledge. The first climate scientists were earth scientists, geologists, before climate science had their own 'degree'.

Michael Mann's qualifications?

'A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]'

According to wiki, which according to you is gold standard.

'Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.'

http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17322 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #417 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:39pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm: Not l;ike the crap you quote from and make no attempot to justify You want me to justify IPCC, Kevin Trenberth. You still don't get it do you? They are warmists that I'm quoting. So you admit IPCC writings are crap? Welcome to the real world.
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #418 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:50pm

lee wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm:

And constantly reviewed for accuracy.

Not l;ike the crap you quote from and make no attempot to justify.

So why not try and justify it now.

Tell us why it doesn't bother you that every argument you have posted here and most everything you cut and paste originates from sites sponsored and contributed to by the fossil fuel industry esp the Koch brothers.

You want me to justify IPCC, Kevin Trenberth. You still don't get it do you? They are warmists that I'm quoting.

So you admit IPCC writings are crap? Welcome to the real world. Grin

Yes you quote the warmists like you quoted my last post because your a deceitful sock. Now I have reproduced my full quote (the blue bits are what you left out. So hows about you answer the question Sock!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17322
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #419 - Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:58pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Now I have reproduced my full quote (the blue bits are what you left out. So hows about you answer the question Sock!!!

The question involves an allegation which is untrue. How can I answer something that is not true? I'm sure you have an answer, not meaningful, but an answer anyway.

Did you enjoy Michael Mann's Climate Science qualifications? A geologist, fancy a geologist claiming to be a climate scientist. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged