US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The nearly 700 data sets used:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3


UHI has been discounted by BEST
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581...4581-1-104.pdf

Another acronym laced posting. Would you care to write those on long hand? Endless studies have been produced by biased and fraudulent scientists. No need to spend time looking at more. There is some key evidence though that disproves the climate hoax.


The notion of anthropomorphic climate change has only been a political debate under the guise of science. The idea was first promoted on large scale by Margret Thatcher as a threat against striking coal miners.

Just do a bit of reading on "climategate". You will discover the massive fraud that has been committed by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Dr. Michael Mann was also involved with his infamous false "hockey stick curve". Big media only briefly covered the climate gate story that broke in 2010. It has been long forgotten as the media and politicians continue their false climate narrative. The UN IPCC has relied heavily on this fraudulent data to establish their political stance on climate. They are not a science organization. They are a political body which relies on false science to support political action.

On August 22, 2019 British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled in favor of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball whom fraudster climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann had sued for libel. Ball had justifiably publicly criticized Mann. Mann never delivered his data to the court, that if correct would have given him victory over Ball. Climate change proponents will claim that the case was dismissed due to time delay. But the fact that matters is that Dr. Michael Mann never produced data to prove his assertion of libel against Dr. Ball. Since proof was never produced, we can be certain that it does not exist. Dr. Mann's data would have been easily proven by Dr. Ball as fraud in court.



And Dr. Mann paid a high price for his lack of credibility by agreeing to pay the legal costs of his opponent that were in the million dollar range. Would this be the course of action of a man who was right? Effectively, man made climate change was proven to be a fraud in the British Columbia. It is easy to see that between Dr. Mann and the Judge, this was a creative means to dispose of the trial, and at the same time avoid direct exposure of the massive fraud that would have officially produced a conclusion that would have seen the entire industrial climate change industrial complex dashed to bits world wide. But of course the media and governments will never admit to this.

But if you ask anyone who promotes the fraud of man made climate change, they are likely ignorant of climategate and Dr. Michael Man's fraud. They only believe big media that ignores evidence which exposes the fraud. But they embellish false claims that support it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

[the same garbage, third time now.]

Knock it off, man. Those are old lies, and not even entertaining any more.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The promoters of anthropomorphic climate change are the true deniers. They chose to deny that climate varies by natural means. This is variation of solar activity. They deny the exposure of fraud that disproves their false position.

The current warming is anthropogenic.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/

adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
"explanations of animal behavior in anthropomorphic terms"
having human characteristics.
"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

Solar activity has little to do with current climate change

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...limate-change/

Milankovitch cycles also cannot explain the current warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Consensus does not confirm science. If one scientist by scientific means proves something to be correct. It would not matter if 10 000 others disagree. The climate cultists try to turn science into a democratic process. There is no scientific consensus on climate change. It is not possible to have scientific consensus. It is only possible to have political consensus. This proves that the notion of anthropomorphic climate change has only been a political debate under the guise of false science. The idea was first promoted on large scale by Margret Thatcher as a threat against striking coal miners.

You really need to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn in which he discusses the role of scientific consensus in scientific paradigms. Here is a Cliff's Notes version

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...kuhn/#ConcPara

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Just do a bit of reading on "climategate". You will discover the massive fraud that has been committed by scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Dr. Michael Mann was also involved with his infamous false "hockey stick curve". Big media only briefly covered the climate gate story that broke in 2010. It has been long forgotten as the media and politicians continue their false climate narrative. The UN IPCC has relied heavily on this fraudulent data to establish their political stance on climate. They are not a science organization. They are a political body which relies on false science to support political action.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

+++++++++++++++++

A former climate change sceptic has told the BBC he wants to apologise for his role in the "Climategate" scandal.

Thousands of documents and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, shortly before a UN conference in 2009.

Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.

Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

Speaking to BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera for The Hack That Changed the World podcast, Mr Mosher said: "If I get to make an apology, even if it's remotely via BBC, to Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, then I'm happy."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct.

"In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

On August 22, 2019 British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled in favor of climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball whom fraudster climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann had sued for libel. Ball had justifiably publicly criticized Mann. Mann never delivered his data to the court, that if correct, would have given him victory over Ball. Climate change proponents will claim that the case was dismissed due to court delays. But the fact that matters is that Dr. Michael Mann never produced data to prove his assertion of libel against Dr. Ball. Since proof was never produced, we can be certain that it does not exist. Dr. Mann's data would have been easily proven by Dr. Ball as fraud in court. And Dr. Mann paid a high price for his lack of credibility by agreeing to pay the legal costs of his opponent that were in the million dollar range. Would this be the course of action of a man who was right? These men are academics, not high rolling business tycoons. A million bucks is no trivial sum to such men. Effectively, man made climate change was proven to be a fraud in the British Columbia Supreme Court. But of course the media and governments will never admit to this.

The judge made no ruling on the merits of the case. Ball asked for a dismissal for delay and his codefendant, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, apologized and retracted the Ball article.

Michael Mann v. Timothy (“Tim�) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. and John Doe - Climate Change Litigation

In the meantime Ball lost in the lawsuit from Andrew Weaver.
https://www.theenergymix.com/2020/06...nier-tim-ball/

Mann's data has been available on his website for at least a decade.
Michael E. Mann

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

But if you ask anyone who promotes the fraud of man made climate change, they are likely ignorant of climategate and Dr. Michael Man's fraud. They only believe big media that ignores evidence which exposes the fraud. But they embellish false claims that support it

Here are over 5 dozen replications of the the hockey stick by different groups of researchers using different methodologies on different data sets.
https://gist.github.com/priscian/810...38542fb7027eaf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Another acronym laced posting. Would you care to write those on long hand? Endless studies have been produced by biased and fraudulent scientists. No need to spend time looking at more. There is some key evidence though that disproves the climate hoax.

UHI -urban heat island

BEST - Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures
Berkeley Earth – Berkeley Earth

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Bull and we both know it . If the sun suddenly went and reduced all output by 25% the planet would revert back to snowball earth in a really rapid fashion .

If not the sun then what? The sun is the only game in town .

Without the CO2 in the atmosphere the Earth would be -18C.
https://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cont...2020-239#sec-6

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

When the overwhelming number of "academics" are self-proclaimed Democrats, I don’t see how you can believe that "group-think" is solely an affliction of the right.

"I'd believe it more than Anything said by By Trump or any of the Loonies on the Right at AFPAC."

Everyone likes to believe people who agree with them. A good example of "groupthink."

A couple of Republican climate scientists to satisfy you

Kerry Emanuel - https://youtu.be/7so8GRCWA1k

Richard Alley - https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The current warming is anthropogenic.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/

adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
"explanations of animal behavior in anthropomorphic terms"
having human characteristics.
"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

Solar activity has little to do with current climate change

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...limate-change/

Milankovitch cycles also cannot explain the current warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/




You really need to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn in which he discusses the role of scientific consensus in scientific paradigms. Here is a Cliff's Notes version

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...kuhn/#ConcPara



Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

+++++++++++++++++

A former climate change sceptic has told the BBC he wants to apologise for his role in the "Climategate" scandal.

Thousands of documents and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, shortly before a UN conference in 2009.

Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.

Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

Speaking to BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera for The Hack That Changed the World podcast, Mr Mosher said: "If I get to make an apology, even if it's remotely via BBC, to Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, then I'm happy."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct.

"In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.



The judge made no ruling on the merits of the case. Ball asked for a dismissal for delay and his codefendant, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, apologized and retracted the Ball article.

Michael Mann v. Timothy (“Tim�) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. and John Doe - Climate Change Litigation

In the meantime Ball lost in the lawsuit from Andrew Weaver.
https://www.theenergymix.com/2020/06...nier-tim-ball/

Mann's data has been available on his website for at least a decade.
Michael E. Mann



Here are over 5 dozen replications of the the hockey stick by different groups of researchers using different methodologies on different data sets.
https://gist.github.com/priscian/810...38542fb7027eaf

Funny how all of the data disproving "climategate" come from the exact same institutions that are named as being major players in same .

And of course Penn state would do all they need to to protect their cash cow even if he lied to the IPCC to get his doctorate.

Perhaps he just did get to small of a tree ring sampling. And assumed that small rings meant hot dry conditions.
Funny but some of the densest wood ( smallest tree ring sizes ) came from periods where things were known to be extremely cold and dry compared to the normal averages.

Case in point the violins made by Antonio Stradivari. The rich deep notes are attributed to the trees that grew during the little ice age .

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The current warming is anthropogenic.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/

adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
"explanations of animal behavior in anthropomorphic terms"
having human characteristics.
"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

Solar activity has little to do with current climate change

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...limate-change/

Milankovitch cycles also cannot explain the current warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/




You really need to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn in which he discusses the role of scientific consensus in scientific paradigms. Here is a Cliff's Notes version

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...kuhn/#ConcPara



Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

+++++++++++++++++

A former climate change sceptic has told the BBC he wants to apologise for his role in the "Climategate" scandal.

Thousands of documents and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, shortly before a UN conference in 2009.

Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.

Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

Speaking to BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera for The Hack That Changed the World podcast, Mr Mosher said: "If I get to make an apology, even if it's remotely via BBC, to Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, then I'm happy."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct.

"In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.



The judge made no ruling on the merits of the case. Ball asked for a dismissal for delay and his codefendant, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, apologized and retracted the Ball article.

Michael Mann v. Timothy (“Tim�) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc. and John Doe - Climate Change Litigation

In the meantime Ball lost in the lawsuit from Andrew Weaver.
https://www.theenergymix.com/2020/06...nier-tim-ball/

Mann's data has been available on his website for at least a decade.
Michael E. Mann



Here are over 5 dozen replications of the the hockey stick by different groups of researchers using different methodologies on different data sets.
https://gist.github.com/priscian/810...38542fb7027eaf

Mann's published fraudulent data may have been available on line. But what about the raw date that should support it? Why did he cause excessive court delays by failing to produce it? The judge's failure to rull onnthe case only indicates the pressure that he was under not to rick the world wide political boat. Dismissal of the case was just a creative means for him to avoid the controversy. This is not an uncommon means for judges to avoid a major political controversy. Judges often stay charges to avoid setting a president that could drastically effect the politics of a ruling.



Procedural means is how the US Supreme court failed to resolve the presidential election dispute. Fear of politics does influence court decisions. Just look at Derek Chauvin, whose trial was tainted by political interference from Rep. Maxine Waters who counciled members of the public to riot if the trial did not rule as she wished. And as high as the President of the USA himself who committed an impeachable offense by publicly commenting on the trail before it was concluded. The spineless judge should have declared a mistrial based upon these two incidences alone.


As for the University of East Anglia climategate, the leaked emails reveal the fraud regardless of motive of the person who leaked them. The later examination of the matter is only an attempt of damage control by obfuscation. The emails are prima facie evidence of the fraud. It matters not if they were "cherry picked".


Judges and inquiry participants can be swayed by fear. Based upon the evidence, this is what happened.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually the numbers are out . Perhaps you should do what I do and check the sources like the UAH and RSS.
What was the hottest year and then list them in decending order .

I will even allow the squed numbers from your mmgwc gods.

I did check both UAH and RSS before I posted, neither has numbers for February that I could find.

As for a sorted list of highest temps (RSS data)... here you go.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
9/1/2016 0.8379
10/1/2017 0.8551
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
4/1/1998 0.8928
9/1/2017 0.8956
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
1/1/2016 0.9244
4/1/2016 1.0087
2/1/2020 1.0309
3/1/2016 1.1313
2/1/2016 1.2579

Now remove 1998, 2016 and 2017 which were El Nino years.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
2/1/2020 1.0309

Humm... cooling???

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Funny how all of the data disproving "climategate" come from the exact same institutions that are named as being major players in same .

And of course Penn state would do all they need to to protect their cash cow even if he lied to the IPCC to get his doctorate.

Perhaps he just did get to small of a tree ring sampling. And assumed that small rings meant hot dry conditions.
Funny but some of the densest wood ( smallest tree ring sizes ) came from periods where things were known to be extremely cold and dry compared to the normal averages.

Case in point the violins made by Antonio Stradivari. The rich deep notes are attributed to the trees that grew during the little ice age .

I have seen this in spruce trees that grow in local harsh coastal climates of the Canadian east coast. These trees get plenty of rain. But they endure short growing seasons characterized by cooler springs and autumns. And of course, fog obscures the sun for extended periods. A tree the diameter of a man's fore arm can be about 100 years old.


Dr. Michael Mann's data based upon rings of one tree is highly subjective to say the least. But the climate cultists do not know anything about scrutinizing research. If a study fits their preconceptions, it proves their view in their own small mind. If it conflicts it is dismissed.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Endless studies have been produced by biased and fraudulent scientists.

There you have it folks - the big lie. Casually toss out a baseless accusation at a huge group of scientists to invalidate a huge body of work in order to validate your baseless opinions. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. These posts are worse than useless, they are despicable.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I did check both UAH and RSS before I posted, neither has numbers for February that I could find.

As for a sorted list of highest temps (RSS data)... here you go.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
9/1/2016 0.8379
10/1/2017 0.8551
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
4/1/1998 0.8928
9/1/2017 0.8956
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
1/1/2016 0.9244
4/1/2016 1.0087
2/1/2020 1.0309
3/1/2016 1.1313
2/1/2016 1.2579

Now remove 1998, 2016 and 2017 which were El Nino years.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
2/1/2020 1.0309

Humm... cooling???

More Acronyms? Please communicate in understandable language. What are those numbers?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I did check both UAH and RSS before I posted, neither has numbers for February that I could find.

As for a sorted list of highest temps (RSS data)... here you go.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
9/1/2016 0.8379
10/1/2017 0.8551
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
4/1/1998 0.8928
9/1/2017 0.8956
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
1/1/2016 0.9244
4/1/2016 1.0087
2/1/2020 1.0309
3/1/2016 1.1313
2/1/2016 1.2579

Now remove 1998, 2016 and 2017 which were El Nino years.
10/1/2020 0.8149
5/1/2020 0.8191
11/1/2020 0.8194
10/1/2015 0.8275
6/1/2019 0.8299
3/1/2020 0.8571
9/1/2020 0.8791
1/1/2020 0.8987
9/1/2019 0.9063
2/1/2020 1.0309

Humm... cooling???

Now do what was asked and just list it by year not cherry months in a year .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

More Acronyms? Please communicate in understandable language. What are those numbers?

Translation: "I know that everything you said is WRONG. btw, what did you just say?"

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by lestersails

There you have it folks - the big lie. Casually toss out a baseless accusation at a huge group of scientists to invalidate a huge body of work in order to validate your baseless opinions. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. These posts are worse than useless, they are despicable.

What about Dr. Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick curve" that he based upon the the rings of one tree? The IPPC used that to base policy upon. This is a key study based upon fraud and it has had major world wide political, economic, and personal effects. It has made many people poorer, and a few people richer. This is the hurtful effect that the climate cultists impose upon people.