Greta Thunberg day in NYC

[tomjasz]

Only tRump and other heartless men would call the young lady mentally ill. Not only a skewed view of global warming but a sickeningly egocentric view of life on the planet. Wow. Just WOW!
Just a mean nasty men, period.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Only tRump and other heartless men would call the young lady mentally ill. Not only a skewed view of global warming but a sickeningly egocentric view of life on the planet. Wow. Just WOW!

Personally I think they are projecting. Because at this point you need to be flat-earther levels of crazy and ignorant to argue that this isn't happening and that we aren’t on a catastrophic trajectory.

You could still make reasonable good-faith arguments about the rate of that change, about likely effects, and about the best ways to deal with the inevitable problems. But pretending it doesn't exist is the realm of kooks and Republicans.

Which is exactly why they are reduced to ad hominem attacks against Greta Thunberg and (earlier in this thread) Michael Mann. They can't argue the facts.

 

[Handlebars]

Mr Coffee was unable to argue the facts, so he quit immediately when they were presented. Instead of demolishing, he ran away.
Thomas said that the reason the parks took down the doom signs is because of politics from the admin...while the truth is that the predictions for glaciers gone by 2020 have already proved false.

FALSE, proven false by reality and the date.
So they slinged their mud instead of responding. They were empty, had no facts.
Now as to Michael Mann, proving he lied over and over again to the public is very very important, because his poor work is the main work depended upon by IPCC and the media. So if he lies and lies, as he provably did, even to the courts, it is a very very significant fact.
This is what the virtuous ones cannot respond to in any form other than personal attack.

 

[Handlebars]

Only tRump and other heartless men would call the young lady mentally ill. Not only a skewed view of global warming but a sickeningly egocentric view of life on the planet. Wow. Just WOW!
Just a mean nasty men, period.

I guess her doctors who diagnosed her are sickeningly nasty, then, eh Thomas?

diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.

 

[Handlebars]

You could still make reasonable good-faith arguments about the rate of that change, about likely effects, and about the best ways to deal with the inevitable problems. But pretending it doesn't exist is the realm of kooks and Republicans.

Mr coffee is unable to digest the fact that I never argue that climate change doesn't exist. And that the rate of change IS what is debated. That rate of change is the linchpin of the catastrophic scenario being painted.
When estimates of sensitivity come down, they need to cling to old and unsupportable information
Which is why they won't, why they are unable, to discuss it reasonably.
They refuse to read and discuss the actual reports.
It's hilarious. TL DR buds.



If the witness THEY call on is Michael Mann, and he is now proven to have lied repeatedly on the subject, then character is a valid subject of interest. Unreliable witness who has lied to the courts and has lost his case because for years on end he has refused to show his homework to the court.
Hard for them to defend, so this is their weak response.

 

[tomjasz]

“Arguing with a climate change denier is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, s*it on the board and then strut around like they won.”

 

[Handlebars]

Note that Mr Coffee is unable to show us the damning evidence that Exxon "knew" 40 yrs ago.
IPCC didn't know, but Exxon knew.
So show the evidence.

Crickets.

 

[Handlebars]

“Arguing with a climate change denier is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, s*it on the board and then strut around like they won.”

Arguing with catstrophist fear mongers who can't be bothered to read the scientific papers OR the reports, is FUNNY.
TLDR and then attack. Child's play to disarm them.

Let's look where the smart money is buying property:
Obama just bought a house where? Shouldn't that be going under water soon? Or did his election really slow the ocean's rise?

The Obamas Just Purchased a Martha's Vineyard Mansion for $11.75 Million

The seven-bedroom estate sits on 29.3 waterfront acres.

Too many reports on sea level rise end with the term “by the end of the century.” This is misleading. The sea will not suddenly rise in the decades to come — it is already doing so. Stephen McKenna, Cape and Islands regional coordinator of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, believes that the time frame for sea-level rise will be sooner than 100 years. “Much sooner,” he said.

Southern New England will see an above-average impact from sea level rise because the land beneath our feet is sinking. “Massachusetts is subsiding so sea level rise is higher than the mean,” Mr. McKenna said.

The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that the counties along the Massachusetts coastline are home to 75 per cent of the state’s population. “From critical infrastructure to waterfront homes to salt marshes, much of this coastline is exceptionally vulnerable to sea-level rise. Indeed, some major insurers have withdrawn coverage from thousands of homeowners . . .” the scientists write.

Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa

In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito, Calif., to their real estate holdings.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.

Montecito has long been a haven for Southern California's rich and famous ...

 

[Handlebars]

You could still make reasonable good-faith arguments about the rate of that change, about likely effects, and about the best ways to deal with the inevitable problems.

I did exactly that, but upon reading the factual refutations of your erroneous info, you immediately quit and resorted to this.

 

[Handlebars]

Mr Coffee presented erroneous information on every feeble try he made. Right here. I have the facts, Mr Coffee has the misinformation.
IN this case, Michael Mann himself discredited his own lie! So many to keep track of.

Mr Coffee.
Professor Michael Mann lists the Oxburgh Inquiry as one of his exonerations
He repeatedly claimed that he was exonerated by everyone including the Lord Oxburgh panel report, and even filed that claim to the court, as you may have read from your own sources of information.

However, in his book, Professor Mann seems to have forgotten his lines, and truthfully stated "our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report".

 

[Handlebars]

Here is Mr Coffee making a serious error

I absolutely agree that Lying to the public about the science repeatedly is evil.

Michael Mann has lied to the public about his science. Instead of responding appropriately, you jumped ship immediately.

Michael Mann LOST his court case against Tim because he defied court orders to show his homework for years on end. He self-contradicts, he has lies on court record and he contradicts some of his lies himself in his own book.
But you think you know!
Instead of hanging in and questioning, you fly the coop. I showed you his lie about "no researcher to our knowledge ..."
But it's in his professional record, his own CV. You lose the case so badly, it's pathetic.

Let's bring that case back up front right now once again: "Hide the decline" lie upon lie.

But I believe that the people doing the lying are the fossil fuel industry and their surrogates, who have known about the risks of CO2-emissions causing climate change for forty years and have spent decades buying elected officials and fake spokespeople who dispute the science. All in the service of making next years numbers and anything else be dammed.

Seriously, do you believe that people would lie to protect a $150,000 per year professorship and $1MM in grants but be scrupulously truthful when hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are at stake? Please do not make me laugh.

As for Professor Mann, multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrongdoing. He is in the process of suing some of his accusers for defamation. The defendants in that case seem to be busy trying to get the case dismissed and firing and hiring different legal representation. Apparently their latest argument is that the case should be dismissed because they were merely engaged in "exaggeration for the purpose of debate". Translation: they (the defendants, not Professor Mann) were lying.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (gets in the weeds but does make it pretty clear that the lying wasn't by scientists.

 

[Handlebars]

To show once again how Mr Coffee and the supplicants were led astray by liars.

Here's Michael Mann on the RealClimate website he shares with the NASA GISS Director Gavin Schmidt, exclaiming upon questioning by John Finn, that no researcher to their knowledge has ever grafted instrumental temperatures onto a proxy line. This was just after climategate broke and "hide the decline" was in the news. Many ordinary people assumed it meant a decline in real temperatures was happening and being hidden. The fawning media gloated over that and reviled them. This questioner on his website, however, knew what he was asking Mike. Wasn't it a dubious thing to do? Absolutely never happened, Mike answered haughtily and smeared the fuel industry as usual once again, for good measure.

Mann:

Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

Here's the email that the questioner John Finn was referring to. It's from Phil Jones, in charge of global temperature records at CRU in England: He's emailing Mike and friends in order to do a version of "Mike's Nature trick" "to hide the decline". "Nature" refers to the scientific journal where Mike had published a paper cleverly hiding the fact that the proxy for temperature was going in the opposite direction of what it should if it's a proxy for temperature. A proxy so good that it can tell the previous decade was the hottest in 1000 yrs! Pure fantasy. A lie.

The tree ring proxy line was spiking down at a time when everyone could see graphed instrumental temperatures spiking up. This ruins the false picture they painted of treemometers being fully able to give them the ability to say a decade now was the hottest in 1000yrs. Unsupportable if you knew what the proxy was really doing... going opposite direction to what is expected ....so they hid that.

Studies of the proxy were showing it isn't such a treemometer. Michael Mann wasn't having that and performed a trick to hide the facts. Phil jumped on the bandwagon with glee after Mike's paper was published. How clever, Mike's trick to hide the decline. So after consulting with team, and told to hide the decline by chopping it off and splicing on something else, Phil got together online with Mike to get support and consultation on how he would emulate Mike's trickiness for the World Meteorological Organization's 50th anniversary journal cover story - millenium version.

Phil Jones said:


Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

"Keith's" is the tree ring proxy graph by Keith Briffa, which had a strong decline, going opposite direction to real temperatures thereby showing that it was not fit to do what they so desired to be able to claim. Phil decided to just chop off the uncooperative data from 1961
onward and illicitly replace the missing portion with an instrumental temperature line. Mike approved that and said it would help the claims he was planning to make in the next IPCC report.

Michael Mann said:

The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.

Mann is agreeing totally to what they planned to do to falsify the graph. He wants to bolster his upcoming IPCC report on his own work where he is the interests-conflicted judge of it and it comes out as the centrepiece for the world to tremble over.


The hockey team is in action. Tim Osborn tells of the T-shirt they have created in celebration of their accomplishments. Mike wants a size medium.

How's things? I have a slightly unusual question for you. We're producing
some CRU t-shirts/polo shirts in the next few weeks. Some will just have
the CRU logo on, but some people want a picture on the back. The picture
we've decided upon has three curves on it showing temperatures over the
last 1000 yrs (I think it's based on the front cover of the WMO statement
on 1999 climate). They're just curves, with nothing to identify what they
are or where they come from (so it's slightly abstract), but in fact on of
them is your 1000-yr NH temperature reconstruction. Do you mind if we put
it on our t-shirts?

Best regards

Tim

Mann:

Dear Tim,

No, I don't mind at all. thanks for letting me know,

mike

p.s. I wear a medium

So now everyone can see that Michael Mann was intimately involved with Phil Jones' effort to make the public and other professionals of various types believe that the tree rings are accurate to use as thermometers to tell a decade as hottest out of 1000yrs of the past although it can't tell what the temperature is now under their noses. When the hockey team told that lie, they were cheating you and yours. They were instilling fear in the public for promotion value of their own work.

This dishonest and misleading work is listed in Michael Mann's own CV, although he decried any suggestion of it ever happening, as the usual lies. It's in his own work record and in his own words, helping, guiding, accepting, t-shirt commemorating, and supporting his IPPC work in promoting his own work.
He lied to the public about the science.
But Mr Coffee and Thomas will not address the issue Mr Coffee previously agreed was a terrible EVIL thing to do. Until he found out who did it.
Then crickets.

I absolutely agree that Lying to the public about the science repeatedly is evil.

EVIL, you said, Mr. Coffee. Now silence on the evil.

That's the worlds 2 most influential climate scientists, presenting a misleading graph, in order to further their own interests.

Mr Coffee:

Seriously, do you believe that people would lie to protect a $150,000 per year professorship and $1MM in grants but be scrupulously truthful when hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are at stake? Please do not make me laugh.

Laughing, Mr Coffee? All in their own words and CV's. Done. You've been shown to have trusted wrongly.
You were so confident in the propaganda you were laughing. Then you had to bail.

From Mann's CV; the thing that no researcher ever did:

•Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Cover Figure for World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 50th Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature changes over the last Millennium, 2000

Or, as he later claimed, just something that everyone had agreed was misleading, but he had nothing whatsoever to do with.

 

[Oberst]

The climate change issue is a perfect example of the current state of our society. People on both extremes are incapable of having a rational and polite conversation and resort to attacks and name calling. I have yet to see any realistic solutions put forth because people on the extreme sides are too focused on trying to demean the other side.

A good start might be to look at ways we can all be more mindful of our resources, encourage development of cleaner energy and allow the free market to reward these developments rather than use taxes to punish the use of existing technology yet accomplish nothing with all that extra money going to the government.
And with this issue like all others, have reasonable people find common ground solutions that will work and not put us back to the stone age because we have to eliminate using any fossil fuels without having viable replacements.

Finally, we should hold people to live up to what they preach and not tell me I should not use any energy while their personal lifestyle uses enough energy to power a small town.
Then again, what do I know......

 

[Handlebars]

Only tRump and other heartless men would call the young lady mentally ill. Not only a skewed view of global warming but a sickeningly egocentric view of life on the planet. Wow. Just WOW!
Just a mean nasty men, period.

Does Thomas believe that having mental illness is a shameful thing? I believe that using a mentally damaged child to indoctrinate and use as a shield for cover, is a shameful thing.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I think this "both sides" fallacy is a bunch of bull pucky.

Only one side in this debate has argued in extremely bad faith, bordering on malevolence. I think arguing that the whole hypothesis of human-caused climate change is invalid because of possible "misconduct" or "errors" in a paper nearly 20 years old, while ignoring all of the other evidence that is plain as day if you just open your eyes, is a clear case of arguing in extreme bad faith.

I think the side that launches vile personal attacks on activists on the other side, many of them children, is demonstrating that they cannot win with facts or logic so they are resorting to name-calling.

I don't think anyone who isn't a kook could think that arguing for eating fewer cheeseburgers is in the same category as personal attacks on a child.

As for "extreme": perhaps you should go have a conversation with people in Australia about what "extreme" means. Perhaps you could also drop in on Paradise, CA and see what they think as well. Speaking for myself, I've had to evacuate my home twice in the last five years and know several people who lost their homes in wildfires. Which for most people would be pretty damned "extreme."

Where I sit on this, if it isn't obvious, is:

• The evidence is in, and is unassailable.
• We are badly screwed if we don't do something, quickly
• What that "something" is is still a subject of reasonable debate, but it isn't likely to be small ball.

 

[tomjasz]

People on both extremes are incapable of having a rational and polite conversation and resort to attacks and name calling.

Which of the peer-reviewed studies confirming Global Climate change aren't polite and resort to attacks? Exactly. NONE. The attacks are coming from the science deniers. The same study percent that holds the earth is flat. Scientists are in agreement.

 

[Handlebars]

Which of the peer-reviewed studies confirming Global Climate change aren't polite and resort to attacks? Exactly. NONE. The attacks are coming from the science deniers. The same study percent that holds the earth is flat. Scientists are in agreement.

Which of the peer-reviewed studies confirming Global Climate change aren't polite and resort to attacks? Exactly. NONE

As is to be expected. Which of them not endorsing are impolite and resort to such attacks? None, same answer. Nice try on misleading the reader.
Then you talk about who is doing attacks...and offer an untrue statement.
I can show many many such attacks, and GROUP PLANNING OF THEM by believers. The scientists themselves and their media accomplices. Nice try, you now opened yourself a can of believer worms because your heroes are knee deep in just that activity.

 

[Handlebars]

Let's start with one of the "information" sources our own people here consult religiously. Skeptical Science. Home of Michael Mann defence. He has personal Editor keys to the site.
backroom talk:

Sometimes you just want to let loose and scream about how you want to take those (^%&&$^&) arseholes, those closed-minded bigotted genocidal pieces of regurgitated dog (*&*^) and do unspeakable violence to their bodies and souls for what they are doing to the safety of what and who we all hold dear. (Ain’t a lack of a moderation policy a cleansing and liberating thing?)

Work out what you are best suited too and do that. But be able to distance yourself enough from your personal reactions to also see the bigger picture of the entire war and contribute to framing that broad campaign – “We need to focus on this and this and this. But my personal contribution will be to ripe Anthony Watts’ throat out – metaphorically of course.

 

[Handlebars]

Why are these people out of their heads? What made them so angry that day? and ... are they for real?

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

They mention "mainstream guys like Gleick" aren't cut out for it....

 

[Handlebars]

Thomas...try to support your claims a bit and begin posting your evidence of such attacks by any prominent skeptics.