The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 2:19pm:



So because they have deleted all reference it never occurred,

Now ll you haveto is convince anyone about Mann's fraudulent hockeystick. Ad he even got done over in the Canadian Court because he wouldn't provide the evidence that would have cleared him; had it existed , of course.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 8:03pm:


So how do you explain away all the scientists saying these preposterous things? Hysterics?

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 9:52pm:

I don't  think scientists are saying it. It's  mostly  activists, journalists, propagandists. The scientists who said that sort of thing - Manne, for example - are discredited.

The modelling is incomplete because the understanding is incomplete, that's  why its predictive power  is negligible. Statistics is selective and climate change is statistics. Human co2 us negligible in the atmospheric economy of gases. Its power to overrule all other factors is a risible fantasy. Hubris.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:


For a science with "negligible" predictive power and models based on "risible fantasy", its predictions have been extraordinarily accurate.

Therefore, climatologists make really lucky guesses?

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 5:54pm:


They used computer models, lee. It's too hard for you to understand.

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2019 at 5:54pm:



He can't. Climate science is stats and the models are hopelessly inadequate and incomplete. Having only one climate, the Earth's, the various hypotheses and conjectures are untestable and un-reproducable by experiment (the basic requirements of advancing scientific conjectures and refutations). So all the models have the inbuilt bias of the proponents of the hypothesis that cannot ever be experimentally tested.

And so we have the history of 'climate change' littered with predictions that never eventuate. Not the warming, not the sea levels, not the inundation, not the catastrophies. Very importantly none of the floods, fires, heavy snow, no snow, more ice, no ice can ever, EVER, be shown to be due to human CO2. The connection is endlessly asserted but never, ever demonstrated. Because it cannot be. It's no more scieentifically accurate than the entrails of chickens, the flights of birds and all the other auguries based on incomplete understanding.  They do NOT know how human CO2 affects anything. On a planet with carbon based life to make CO@ the villain is agit-prop genious with no scientific credibility.  It's modern-day, atheist 'theology' about Mother Gaia.

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2019 at 11:21pm:


So scientists are not actually saying that anthropogenic GHG emissions change the climate? Or were you oblivious to the mindless hysterics in your own post?

Quote:


Pseudo-intellectual hysterics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1998

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions