Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
An example of the 97% lie
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".
Click to expand...


A quote from Dr Idso answering a question about his paper
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
Click to expand...

So Astro, you are saying the scientists own words on his own paper being misrepresented are [HASHTAG]#denial[/HASHTAG] ? You would be cause that 97% agree was the cornerstone of your defence of your belief that the IPCC are not a [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]

This was obviously a question, not an implicit claim that it does, yet it is classed as part of the 97% that agree. One of MANY examples
Cook is one of the teachers at this IPCC paid for MOOC to arm MMCC warriors with lies.
 
Last edited:
Another example of the 97% lie, this 97% is on the home page of that IPCC MMCC warrior training site.

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
From Scafetta himself I broke it down so the forum doesn't hide most of it till you click it.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
Click to expand...
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
Click to expand...
This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
Click to expand...
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
Click to expand...
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.
Click to expand...
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.
Click to expand...
They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.
Click to expand...

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."
Click to expand...
"engaging into a metamorphosis to save" is also true for turning "global warming" into "man made climate change" because the warming stopped in 1998.

I am amazed at how many believers still don;t believe that warming stopped in 98.<yikes>

 
Last edited:
I can post more gross misreprentation of scientists papers in the 97% lie. That lie is the cornerstone of the MMCC believers defence and it's a complete lie.

Are the sceintists themselves in [HASHTAG]#denial[/HASHTAG]?

But Astro, it seems even the scientists themselves saying their work has been taken and twisted is not enough evidence for you to dismiss that 97% agree kack.
 
Another.. by Cook the dude from Skeptical science, an IPCC funded web project and MMCC warrior teacher..
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"
From Shaviv himself
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).
Click to expand...
This ^^^, one of my many arguments for faulty IPCC modelling yet this is the frist time I read about his work
I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?
Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
Click to expand...

^^proof that the miscategorisation of his paper was intentional

We also have Shaviv personally busting one of your main defences Astro, consensus <ok>
[HASHTAG]#science[/HASHTAG] not [HASHTAG]#denial[/HASHTAG]
 
Last edited:
Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,
Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.
Click to expand...
I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.
Click to expand...

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"
On Twitter Dr. Tol had a heated exchange with one of the "Skeptical Science" authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli,
Tol: "@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so."

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?"
 
Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
Click to expand...

Here we have a paper that is strongly dissenting and is still added to the 97% agree or neutral pile when it strongly disagrees.
I referred to the sea levels previously, yesterday actually, showing the IPCC to be full of ****, here we have a scientist backing up that with his paper and totally excluding dissenting papers without adding them to the don't agree pile.

Scientists were not asked if they agree, papes were read by IPCC folks and thrown into the pile of Agreeming with MMCC alarmist views without even asking the scientist that wrote the paper.

So the "97% of scientists agree" means nothing because none of them were even asked.
It's propaganda

The list goes on and on. But do I need to post more to show what the IPCC are.

The guys who did most of that 97% lie work are now running that course I posted about, hmmm?

[HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#epicfraud[/HASHTAG]
 
Last edited:
So Astro, consider your main defence as absolutely annihilated mate, eaten and shat out. Enjoy the bitternes that is sure to follow lad <ok> So bang on about me and [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG] all you like, I'll take it as a compliment :bandit:
[HASHTAG]#thisisnotagame[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#putthisintothesisufolder[/HASHTAG]
 
Very nice [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG] Sisu but I don't think I've ever used the 97% or whatever argument, and I have no position to defend or "believe in"

You are the one who believes in something, that there is a specific [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG]

As a result you trawl the internet looking for confirmation bias and gladly lumping bad science and bad arguments in with any good ones you might have

Yesterday, I asked you did you read that Nature paper. Well, did you? Or did you just get its name from an anti-cimate change article published in a magazine (probably with an advert at the end to buy a book explaining how it's all a [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG])
 
astroturfnaut said:
Very nice [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG] Sisu)
Click to expand...

<laugh> <laugh> <laugh>

That's all you got!! <laugh>


Completely mullered and you drag out that drivel, have totally lost repsect for your skills <laugh>

now I just pity you, like I pity old people who've lost their memory and can't understand why they are standing in the middle of the highstreet in their PJs

****ING OWNED <laugh>

You fight like the French<laugh>


[HASHTAG]#astrohasbeenrelegated[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#putthisinyourSisufolder[/HASHTAG]
 
Last edited:
Sisu said:
<laugh> <laugh> <laugh>

That's all you got!! <laugh>


Completely mullered and you drag out that drivel, have totally lost repsect for your skills <laugh>

now I just pity you, like I pity old people who've lost their memory and can't understand why they are standing in the middle of the highstreet in their PJs

****ING OWNED <laugh>

You fight like the French<laugh>


[HASHTAG]#astrohasbeenrelegated[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#putthisinyourSisufolder[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

Nope, like a spammer you go for quantity over quality and hope that something sticks. I didn't even read all your [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG] let alone be inclined to respond.

When you see a mental person on the street screaming about God you don't engage, you just cross the road and get on with your day <ok>

I know from the whole Robitaille discussion you don't think for yourself (or have the education to understand the issues at hand) and just copy and paste propaganda word for word from apologist websites (or youtube videos)
 
Last edited:
astroturfnaut said:
N
Click to expand...


You talk but all I read is you trying to cover for you fail by not addressing even one point I made

[HASHTAG]#fail[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#AstroFail[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#failoftheday[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#maybefailoftheyear[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#iknowthisgetstoyou[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#putthisinyourSisufoldertoo[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#spineless[/HASHTAG]
 
Sisu said:
You talk but all I read is you trying to cover for you fail by not addressing even one point I made

[HASHTAG]#fail[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#AstroFail[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#failoftheday[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#maybefailoftheyear[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#iknowthisgetstoyou[/HASHTAG]

[HASHTAG]#spineless[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

<laugh> nothing gets to me on not606

[HASHTAG]#untouchable[/HASHTAG]
 
astroturfnaut said:
<laugh> nothing gets to me on not606

[HASHTAG]#untouchable[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...


Now you are playing last post wins
[HASHTAG]#anothersignofFail[/HASHTAG]

What are you laughing at Astro? [HASHTAG]#yourfailure[/HASHTAG]
You must log in or register to see images


Scientists say their own papers are misrepresented.
Astro claims there is a [HASHTAG]#conspiracy[/HASHTAG].
[HASHTAG]#irony[/HASHTAG]
[HASHTAG]#ohtheIrony[/HASHTAG]
 
Last edited:
astroturfnaut said:
..... I know from the whole Robitaille discussion you don't think for yourself
Click to expand...

Oh oh you will have to watch out now, it was after I pointed out to him that he isn't a free thinker that he had his last meltdown ( lose track to be fair). Remember he does think for himself its just that sometimes we are unable to see what he is thinking because we are all zombie creatures controlled by the media etc I see he's already gone for the 'owned' claim with you so who knows what he will claim next.
 
Am so tempted to take you off ignore given it's this thread and the lack of an argument from yer man but I am just so much more pleasant on here when I cant read your posts.

[HASHTAG]#shame[/HASHTAG]

Unless its actually not a reply to me at all, if so then disregard this post.
[HASHTAG]#mybad[/HASHTAG]
 
Sisu said:
Am so tempted to take you off ignore given it's this thread and the lack of an argument from yer man but I am just so much more pleasant on here when I cant read your posts.

[HASHTAG]#shame[/HASHTAG]

Unless its actually not a reply to me at all, then disregard this post.
Click to expand...

If you put me on ignore then do I get a message saying that you are following me, because that's what happened recently? Confused.

Saying you have me on ignore is just too easy a dodge when I you to back a point up?
 
Given another reply update I assume you were actually posting to me, you could actually be any one of three people. :D but I totally assume it's Tobes?

Wasting your time mate.
 
Watcing Kinsgman and the amount of global warming propaganda in it is hilarious.<laugh>
Yet another way to spend their 27 billion in funding.
Is nothing sacred IPCC you ****s, ruining my movies with your [HASHTAG]#fraud [/HASHTAG]
:mad:
 
Sisu said:
Watcing Kinsgman and the amount of global warming propaganda in it is hilarious.<laugh>
Yet another way to spend their 27 billion in funding.
Is nothing sacred IPCC you ****s, ruining my movies with your [HASHTAG]#fraud [/HASHTAG]
:mad:
Click to expand...

FFS just enjoy the action, adventure and comedy <doh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief's leaky bunghole
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back